Why does it matter whether a fetus is life or not?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

The debate over abortion always seems to boil down to one fundamental question: is a fetus life or not? This is something that has always perplexed me, as whether or not it is life seems wholly irrelevant. Even if it is determined to be life, we have an undying contempt for the majority of all life on this planet. Bacteria, mold, single-celled organisms, insects, and generally anything that isn't a mammal are frequently killed by people without a second thought. So what difference does it make if a fetus is a life? I kill all types of life on a regular basis so why not that week-old fetus that is little more than a cluster of cells?

In the same way that it being alive does not make it so sacred, it not being alive does not mean it should not be cared for and protected. Even if it isn't life, it still has a great deal of potential to become not just life, but human life, and most will agree that human life is something to be cherished and defended. Furthermore, a late-term abortion could be incredibly painful to the fetus, regardless of whether or not it is alive. It need not be alive to have a nervous system and be able to feel its own death. We shouldn't be bickering over whether a fetus fits the arbitrary criteria with which we define life. We should be asking how developed the fetus is. Can it feel pain? Is it likely to become a life-form whose rights are universally accepted (i.e., is it likely to be born)? In the case of Christians, when does a fetus get a soul?

Ok, now that I'm done with that semi-rant, some questions for debate:

Should whether or not a fetus is a life affect how we treat it?

What other criteria should be evaluated when determining what rights a fetus has?

[scourge99]

What they believe to be moral? And I should care about what they believe to be right and wrong because...?

that depends on your goals in life.

That's my point. Subjective morality is amorality. That you or I believe something to be right does not make it so, that you or I am disgusted by something does not make it wrong. Quite obviously there doesn't have to be a god for someone to BELIEVE that they know what is right and what is wrong, for there is no god and people still believe in objective morality. However, if one wants to believe in objective morality, and if one wishes to even speak of morality one must believe in objective morality, one must accept a god, or some being which has determined that which is right and that which is wrong.

Wrong. One can believe, for example, that there exists an optimal morality for the status quo. This does not require an intelligent creator anymore than gravity requires a creator.

Subjective morality does not necessitate amorality, though subjective morality might be attributed to all cases of amorality.

I know you will claim that you are not concerned only, or even primarily, with yourself, and if you do make this claim you are a liar. You care about others insofar as they please or displease you. You wouldn't feel a thing if I died, and I would not feel a thing if you died. We are totally selfish beings. Every choice you made was made simply because you wanted to do it, because that choice was perceived by you to be the best for you.

Wrong. Even in nature we see examples of animals with altruistic behavior. In war we have countless examples of people sacrificing themselves for the sake of others and their community. Your inability to acknowledge this and failure to see beyond yourself is disturbing. Do you honestly believe no atheist has or would sacrifice their life for another or for a greater good?

So which is it? Can one believe just about anything and still be an atheist? Or must one follow his belief to its logical end to call himself an atheist?

I don't understand why you are so concerned with a label unless you intend to apply that label to some purposeful means.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

An atheist denies all God/s. A Catholic is no atheist. I've heard the argument before, it's flawed.

A philosophy and a religion are not always the same. If atheism cannot be argued using epirical methods (check) relies on logical reasoning (check) attempts to explain nature, causes and principles of reality (check, check and check) then it is a philosophy.

Why are you a Humanist? What's so special about people?

"Atheism is simply and only the lack of beliefs in a god or anything of a supernatural sort."

Wrong. A disbelief or denial of God/s. It says nothing of the supernatural.

"Morality is evolutionary because man is a social animal. If we did not develop morals we could not be a social animal."

That is a fallacy. Morality is evolutionary because man is a social creature? What about being a social creature necessitates the evolution of morality? Why did dogs not evolve such a thing?

Believe what you want. I know that you're not a real atheist, but a theist in denial. I also know that you don't know what sociopathy is.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

An optimal morality for the status quo? And what would that be?

Subjective morality is amorality. People want to feel comfortable with their actions so they apply justification: right and wrong, bad and good, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical.

Find me an example of an animal acting altruistically. I don't think anyone sacrifices anything for anything. What has the man in war sacrificed? His life? What life? He was an animal who died fighting another animal. Nothing more, nothing less. "Greater good." is the normal justification used by mass murderers and ruthless dictators, so I would be careful in it's application if I were you.

My question to you is this: how do YOU know that the soldier has sacrificed ANYTHING by dying?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

What has the man in war sacrificed? His life? What life? He was an animal who died fighting another animal.

Do you mean to suggest that animals aren't alive? It doesn't matter if he is an animal. If you DIE in war, you, by definition, lose your life. Whether he wanted to or not, he gave up his life to further whatever cause his army is fighting for. He gave something up in order to further some other goal. That, by definition is a sacrifice. Whether you think the sacrifice was pointless or not, you can't get around the fact that he did sacrifice his life unless you wish to change the definition of the word.

Subjective morality is amorality. People want to feel comfortable with their actions so they apply justification: right and wrong, bad and good, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical.

You keep saying this but subjective morality has so many practical differences from amorality. Look around you. The entire world is living by various subjective moral codes, and it has a GIGANTIC effect on how almost every aspect of society occurs.

If the entire world were amoral (as in completely without morality, not without objective morality), society would be a very different place. Without any kind of morality, there would be no basis for laws so any kind of social contract or government would be impossible. People would do whatever without thinking about morality which would greatly affect their decisions. Given how different this world would be from the one we currently have, how can you sit there and say that subjective morality is the same as no morality at all? Subjective moral codes can still have a very large effect on the decisions we make and how we act.

[scourge99]

An optimal morality for the status quo? And what would that be?

An optimal set of morals based on the knowledge one has to work off of.

We see right and wrong from our value based perspective rather than from a perfect perspective, free of our subjective and limited world view. This highlights two of the problems:

1) the problem with being non-omniscient - We only can base our opinions off what we have experienced. In the future our opinions may radically change as new knowledge becomes available. That is, there may in fact be a single morality that is the best for our purpose but we have no way at the moment of determining such. But for the time being let's assume that what we know now based on our experiences is truth despite the fact it will likely change as new evidence and knowledge becomes available.

2) The second problem is that morals are based on subjective goals. What we deem as right is because they are optimal paths to reaching our goals/purpose. The problem is there is no apparent universal purpose/goal in life. It is subjective. Some peoples goal is to be happy. Others is to achieve enlightenment. For others its to please their God. Thus, certain actions may be optimal for achieving a purported goal or purpose but that is the extent to the universality.

Subjective morality is amorality. People want to feel comfortable with their actions so they apply justification: right and wrong, bad and good, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical.

What you've described is something akin to an emotional/intuitive approach. But to state that such an approach is the only approach or a valid approach based on current knowledge is presumptuous and incorrect.

Find me an example of an animal acting altruistically.

Took me a bit to remember my college biology classes but I found the term I was looking for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness
An example of inclusive fitness is when Belding's ground squirrel gives an alarm call to warn its group of the presence of a predator. By emitting the alarm, the squirrel puts itself into increased danger by giving away its location. In the process, however, the squirrel protects its relatives that live within the population (along with the rest of the population). In further studies, it has been shown that willingness of the squirrel to put itself at risk is directly proportional to how closely related it is to members of its population. Therefore, if protecting the other squirrels in the immediate area will lead to the passing on of more of the squirrels own genes than the squirrel could leave by reproducing on its own, the squirrel is willing to risk sacrificing itself which leads to greater inclusive fitness.

The concept serves to explain how natural selection can perpetuate altruism. If there is an '"altruism gene"' (or complex of genes) that influences an organism's behavior to be helpful and protective of relatives and their offspring, this behavior also increases the proportion of the altruism gene in the population. Altruists may also have some way to recognize altruistic behavior in completely unrelated individuals and be inclined to support them. Inclusive fitness encompasses both of these phenomena.

I don't think anyone sacrifices anything for anything.

What you mean to say is that you don't think anyone does something that is "an end in and of itself"? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

Or do you not believe altruistic behavior exists?

I don't understand exactly what you mean. You'll have to elaborate with words rather than exclusively examples.

What has the man in war sacrificed? His life?

Depends on who's perspective and what the man thinks he is doing.

What life? He was an animal who died fighting another animal. Nothing more, nothing less.

Based on your subjective world view, yes. To him he could have been fighting to reach Valhalla or to protect the world from perceived apocalypse or for something entirely unheroic at all.

My question to you is this: how do YOU know that the soldier has sacrificed ANYTHING by dying?

I don't know anything except that by which I have gained through experience and introspection. I am not omniscient. But that is irrelevant. As long as one BELIEVES in that which they are sacrificing for then that is what they have done in their own mind.

Belief is EVERYTHING, it does not matter whether someone else knows you are right or wrong. At our current point in human knowledge there are many valid beliefs. I would caution you to believe wisely.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

Perhaps "losing" his life was better for him, as the Christians suggest. Perhaps he had no life to lose. I cannot know, for I am not him. You could say that he gave his life for this cause or that cause, but how do I know he really did?

Without any kind of objective morality there is no real basis for law. You claim that subjective morality gives us this basis, but how? Why should I listen to your laws that I should not kill, if my morality tells me there is nothing wrong with murder?

The problem is this: one can say "Well of course subjective morals are different than amoralism" but how? That you believe it to be wrong cannot be your only reason for prohibiting me from doing it, can it?

I am not saying that "subjective morality" (what I call "false-justification") does not have any effect on people's decisions. I am saying that what you call "subjective morality" is actually amoralism hiding behind the illusions of right and wrong.

If you believe morality is subjective, than please justify putting people in prison for merely disagreeing with you.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

The squirrel in your example is bound by nature to pass on his/her genes. Doesn't really fit the example of altruism.

Altruism is the practice of selfless concern for the well-being of others. A squirrel is actually acting selfishly, he/she is ensuring the survival of his/her genes. Find me an animal that goes out of its way to help or save another animal with no advantages gained for itself.

This is what I mean by saying that nothing sacrifices anything. Any "sacrifice" is merely a transaction, you buying one situation, the desirable one, with another situation, the undesirable. You don't want your wife to die, so you buy her continued life with yours. I suppose it fits the technical definition of sacrifice, but sacrifice has such annoyingly positive connotations.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Perhaps "losing" his life was better for him, as the Christians suggest.

He still sacrificed his life though. If I see someone getting mugged, and offer to give the robber a really nice watch I have to leave this guy alone, I am sacrificing my watch for the vitcim's safety. He may be very wealthy and turn around and buy me a new $20,000 Rolex, but I had no way of knowing that when I gave up my watch. I therefore sacrificed, and just happened to end up better off because of my sacrifice. In the same way, the soldier gives up his life for some cause, not knowing that heaven or some paradise awaits them.

Also, from the perspective of the cause he was fighting for, they sacrificed this soldier's life in order to further their cause. They lost someone willing to fight for them in order to get one step closer to a situation in which he is no longer needed.

Perhaps he had no life to lose. I cannot know, for I am not him. You could say that he gave his life for this cause or that cause, but how do I know he really did?

So you're saying that you don't know that this soldier was living, nor do you know that he actually died? I think you might be taking skepticism a bit too far here. I don't see much point in debating this if you are not willing to say that other people are alive.

Without any kind of objective morality there is no real basis for law. You claim that subjective morality gives us this basis, but how? Why should I listen to your laws that I should not kill, if my morality tells me there is nothing wrong with murder?

Because they'll string you up on the gallows if you don't.

The problem is this: one can say "Well of course subjective morals are different than amoralism" but how? That you believe it to be wrong cannot be your only reason for prohibiting me from doing it, can it?

They are different because subjective morality is saying "I believe in a moral code that I hold myself to. I may or may not try to apply this to others, but I realize it is not absolute." Amorality is saying "There is no such thing as morality, I hold no one including myself to any kind of moral standard." How are those two things the same????? They share a similarity, which is that they are not absolute, and not objective. How does having that SINGLE thing in common make them the same? There are so many glaring differences between no morality and morality that simply cannot be forced down the throat of every person living on this planet so why ignore them because of that ONE thing?

You keep bringing up the fact that there is no reason for people to follow a subjective morality. So what? That does not make subjective morality amoral. If one person chooses to follow a subjective morality because it feels right to them, because it fits their definition of right and wrong, that person is not amoral. They do not lack morality. They live by a moral code. There is simply no justification for them forcing that code upon someone else. Morality does not have to be universally applicable, it does not have to be absolute, in order to exist, and the simple fact that it exists makes it distinct from amorality (or no morality).

I am not saying that "subjective morality" (what I call "false-justification") does not have any effect on people's decisions.

If subjective morality and amorality are different in practice, then they also must be different in theory. Subjective morality affects people in a different way than amorality, so there clearly must be considerable differences between the two. Subjective morality makes people follow a moral code. Amorality makes morality a non-factor in people's decisions.

If you believe morality is subjective, than please justify putting people in prison for merely disagreeing with you.

They were born into a social contract. They broke that contract by breaking the laws of the government (which usually reflect the general morality of the society over which the government presides) and so they must be punished in order to maintain order and allow civilization to continue. The majority (vast majority) wish for civilization to continue so these laws are enforced and people who break them are thrown in jail. It may not have moral backing, but it is effective, and has allowed society to flourish for centuries.

I am saying that what you call "subjective morality" is actually amoralism hiding behind the illusions of right and wrong.

Right and wrong are only deceptive when presented as objective truths. When presented as subjective ideas that change depending on the perspective, they are no illusion.

You are, however, correct in that morality is amorality when you remove right and wrong. Put simply, a moral code dictates what is right and what is wrong. If you get rid of right and wrong, you are left with nothing.

[scourge99]

Perhaps "losing" his life was better for him, as the Christians suggest. Perhaps he had no life to lose. I cannot know, for I am not him. You could say that he gave his life for this cause or that cause, but how do I know he really did?

Do you have a point here? I'm not seeing it.

Without any kind of objective morality there is no real basis for law. You claim that subjective morality gives us this basis, but how?

The basis of law is the power to enforce it. Whether it is a dictator with absolute control or a democracy, the law is upheld by force or consent.

Why should I listen to your laws that I should not kill, if my morality tells me there is nothing wrong with murder?

You don't have to listen to any laws. No one can stop your thoughts. But we can physically stop you, either in the act or subsequently. And you will obey for fear of the consequences or because you agree or some other reason.

The problem is this: one can say "Well of course subjective morals are different than amoralism" but how? That you believe it to be wrong cannot be your only reason for prohibiting me from doing it, can it?

Why not? Why can't society and I say what you are doing is wrong because society and I find it wrong despite it being our subjective opinion?

I am not saying that "subjective morality" (what I call "false-justification") does not have any effect on people's decisions. I am saying that what you call "subjective morality" is actually amoralism hiding behind the illusions of right and wrong.

Call it whatever you want , the definition doesn't make your argument for you. Its merely a placeholder. And once you eliminate the placeholder the semantics you have twisted yourself up in disappear.

If you believe morality is subjective, than please justify putting people in prison for merely disagreeing with you.

Because society and I find it just and we have the will and power to have our way.

If you don't like it then try to convince or force society (or the person(s) in power) to see things your way. Or go live in the wilderness by yourself--there is no morality outside of society.

[scourge99]

The squirrel in your example is bound by nature to pass on his/her genes. Doesn't really fit the example of altruism.

How does that not fit the definition of altruism?

Altruism (from Latin: alter: the other) is the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest.

If you makeup your own definition of it then state it, otherwise no one knows what you are saying when you use the word.

Altruism is the practice of selfless concern for the well-being of others. A squirrel is actually acting selfishly, he/she is ensuring the survival of his/her genes. Find me an animal that goes out of its way to help or save another animal with no advantages gained for itself.

that isn't the definition of altruism. That definition is logically impossible and thus worthless. What you are saying with your definition: altruism - consciously doing something for others or the perceived common good without wanting to do something for others or the perceived common good.

That is impossible and why its a useless definition to apply.

This is what I mean by saying that nothing sacrifices anything. Any "sacrifice" is merely a transaction, you buying one situation, the desirable one, with another situation, the undesirable. You don't want your wife to die, so you buy her continued life with yours. I suppose it fits the technical definition of sacrifice, but sacrifice has such annoyingly positive connotations.

Sounds like you answered your own question. Instead of saying "altruistic" you substituted "sacrifice". However altruism doesn't have to involve destruction or loss where sacrifice does.