quote:

---

Originally written by Bad-Ass Mother Custer:


The disjoint here comes of you believing your essentially unscientific view on when human life begins ought to legally supercede anyone else's essentially unscientific view on when human life begins. I'd like you to precisely and concisely explain why you believe that without relying on lurid analogies or quoting pro-life researchers and publications.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by andrew miller:

quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

If we can agree that killing people is wrong (I hope we can), and we can agree on the scientific facts, then we should naturally come to the same conclusion.

---

But doesn't your conviction on this issue stem from your religious beliefs?

I believe that murder is wrong, but not because the Bible tells me that it is. Murder is wrong because my society decided that it should be, and I am a willing member of this society. This pact was created in part to assure the personal security of the individuals it comprises; outside of the laws we've decided for ourselves, there is no right or wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by andrew miller:


Because we are accustomed to the only laws most of us have ever known, we naturally are inclined to believe them universal; however, this is not the case, as history has demonstrated when cultures have come into conflict and war.

I would assert that because human beings created the laws, there is no reason that human life is inherently sacred or special outside of the value given to it and the protection afforded to it within societies. Should we decide to extend protection to fetuses, it will be due to a consensus within society, not because of some overarching inherent value.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by andrew miller:


With regard to science, we've determined that we genetically are not so distinct from the animals we regularly don't hold in high regard - consider the fact that the human genome is 98.5% identical to that of the chimpanzee genome. What is it about that 1.5% that is so distinct? How do a chimpanzee fetus and a human fetus differ? Is it not the case that some chimpanzees develop and demonstrate more intelligence than many mentally challenged humans? Are their lives more sacred than these individuals'?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Toasty Warm:

If there was a universally objective perfect moral system for all human beings, then no one would be able to contest it because it would be able to stand up to all questioning. Every part of it would be right.

---

quote:

---

In a social context, what I believe is irrelevant because I am irrelevant. And since society has far more effect on the shape of my life than I ever will, that means my own beliefs are irrelevant to the course of my life.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:

Good is a modern notion. Pleasing the Gods may bring rain, food, or prosperity. They would bring fertility and happiness. To the ancients these things are what we call good.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:


The ancient Greeks generally believed that the gods were perfect as well. (One would think this would require a fair bit of cognitive dissonance, but apparently they were capable of it.)

Mind you, the Greeks didn't practice human sacrifice, but they did do plenty of things you wouldn't approve of.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

That doesn't fit with my experience at all. I find it hard to believe that a loyal soldier and a conscientious objector, both believing that they're doing the right thing, are motivated by the exact same set of principles. And that's only within *our* society; traditions such as human sacrifice are so far removed from our experience that they're incomprehensible, but we have no reason to believe that the people who performed them thought there was anything wrong with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

How is saying that someone does something because he believes he should any different from saying that he does it because he wants to do it? Clearly on some level he did want to do it (even if only out of a vague feeling of obligation), or he wouldn't have done it.

And I don't know about you, but whenever I do something that I feel as if I ought to do, I always do it with at least some anticipation that someone is going to heap praise and adulation on me for doing it, even if realistically I know that's unlikely. (And if the vanishingly remote prospect of a reward weren't enough to motivate many people, poker machines wouldn't be so popular.)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

Now, to me, a reasonable definition of what is objectively right might look something like the following:

If it is objectively right to do something, then any given individual should do that thing under any given circumstances.

I hope nobody finds this statement objectionable.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:


There is, unfortunately, a problem with the above statement, and it has to do with the word "should". Ordinarily, when we say that someone should do something, we have in the back of our minds some reason why they should do that thing.

If a police officer tells me "You should not kill people because if you do then you will be imprisoned, and you would not like that", this is all very well. If a religious person tells me "You should not kill people because you will go to hell, and you would not like that", this is all very well also; it may be a true statement, it may be a false statement, but it's a statement I can understand. But how am I even to interpret the bald statement "You should not kill people"?

If I ask someone "Why should I not kill people?" and he says "You should not kill people because it is right not to do so", then since by the above definition something right is something everyone should do, he is saying "You should not kill people because you should not kill people", which seems like no answer at all.

---