• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump to expand Hobby Lobby to "moral convictions"

ConnorEl said:
It could be. And of course is for some.
Click to expand...

Um what? What do you mean it could be?

I'm going to assume you don't think that's a rational reason to value white people more than other people (or that such a rational reason exists).

There is no intrinsic moral value to having white skin. What makes your humanness morally valuable in a way that your skin color is not?
 
I mean if you valued lighter-skinned people more than darker-skinned people you wouldn't be the first or only person to make that judgement.

Racism is built on such assessments.
 
And it's not necessary for humans to possess (so-called) intrinsic value in order to be valued.
 
ConnorEl said:
I mean if you valued lighter-skinned people more than darker-skinned people you wouldn't be the first or only person to make that judgement.

Racism is built on such assessments.
Click to expand...

No shit. Those assessments are objectively bad. What separates those assessments from your assessment that humans have value because you are human.
 
[embrace your inner speciesism, it's natural and doesn't have to be pure]
 
I've already indicated, nothing particularly. It's merely a judgement I determine to make. Or that we agree to make.
 
RChildress107 said:
1. so if the mom stops eating the fetus is going to just hop on out and continue developing until it obtains consciousness?

2. No it doesn't depend. Those two sentences have two separate meanings and thus are not equal. So what? A fetus is neither, all humans from birth until brain death are at least one.

3. Care to present an argument for any of those statements? What is it about human life that is worth valuing? What is it about human life that makes it worth valuing above all other forms of life?

4. I'm beginning to think you don't understand the meaning of the word arbitrary.
Click to expand...



Sorry, missed this earlier.

1. We are all dependent on a sustaining environment. None of us is truly independent. So?

2. The fist is a subset of the second.

...the rest we've covered.
 
ConnorEl said:
Yep. So is sentientism. Or ableism. Etc.

What we choose to value is ours to determine. For ourselves individually and collectively.
Click to expand...

From mirriam-Webster: "arbitrary - based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something."

Unless you are arguing that values are purely relative and thus are all arbitrary I truly don't understand what you mean by this.

You believe a human fetus has value because you choose to believe it. That's the definition of arbitrary. I believe a human fetus has no (or very little when compared to persons) intrinsic value based on a standard of personhood that I have provided an extensive argument for and have been willing to defend. You may disagree with it but it's certainly not arbitrary.
 
Last edited:
ConnorEl said:
Sorry, missed this earlier.

1. We are all dependent on a sustaining environment. None of us is truly independent. So?

2. The fist is a subset of the second.

...the rest we've covered.
Click to expand...

1. A human fetus is unique among all human beings in being necessarily dependent on one particular individual.

2. A subset does not equal its set. The difference between the two, and the reason I stated and believe the latter, is that it heads off the asinine argument of "well what about people who are sleeping, blah blah blah."
 
RChildress107 said:
Also who the fuck said anything about ableism?
Click to expand...

I did. Just giving another example of a what could be a preferred value construct.

Sentience. Or potential sentience--but only if ever sentient in the right way/amount at some earlier time. And not if one is dependent on a single other human being. Meaning your mother, of female parent. If you happen to be at some date after birth dependent on a single human being for any reason though, that's different.

Seems like you have to work pretty hard to exclude the poor little fetuses from belonging to the class of humans that possess any value. Or being valued.

I think it's much more straightforward to simply value human life. Which clearly begins at conception. Regardless of how one determines, preferentially and subjectively, to define personhood.

And I think that the generally desirable response to dependent or otherwise vulnerable human life is protect and nurture it. To facilitate its natural flourishing as able. Because I am a human being who has been once in the womb, once so dependent, and I'm grateful I was given the opportunity to continue to live and develop both before and after birth.

And I think to nurture and protect dependent and vulnerable human life, yes particularly that which reasonably can be expected to grow, develop and thrive, is generally more desirable than to seek excuses or rationalizations for devaluing or disrespecting it. And I think definitions of personhood that preferentially exclude the weakest and most powerless humans tend to have corrosive effects on our society and civilization.

My point from the beginning is that none of this requires either some arbitrary or subjectively defined "intrinsic" value nor a theological underpinning. Not that such arguments are not possible. Or unknown to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top