Influences on Human Rights, Culture, Religion - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Kryptoni · 09-25-2007, 12:49 PM

Well, after being accused of 'trolling' the abortion thread, I figured I'd open a different one that expounds upon philosophy I was trying to communicate (unsuccessfully).

The United Nations defines Basic Human rights as follows -

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

The fist one being -
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

From an pro-abortion standpoint the key word is born. From a anti-abortion standpoint (notice I'm staying away from the political position labels), the word born is not the defining element in the statement

Many on both side of the issue think 'late-term' abortion is borderline euthanasia since many experts agree a fetus is 'potentially' viable beyond week 26 of gestation.

I don't desire to start a duplicate thread to debate abortion as a right/wrong. Rather explore the implications of the CURRENT state of affairs on our society from our definition of Human Rights, Culture, and Religion.

Society and cultures have rules. Rules that define acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It's been the recent involvement of the government into the family structure that is changing the definition of our culture and society. The passing of Roe v Wade and more importantly the advancement of medicine (i.e. pill, morning after pill, etc) that are changing the fundamentals of our culture. Where choice didn't exist before, it now exist and is argued to be a basic human right.

Let's extrapolate that right a little more. Most would agree that genetic selection (i.e. 'designer babies') is a immoral action. But why? If it is a right of the woman to abort a fetus because it is simply 'unwanted', is it not more acceptable that we do everything to enhance their choice through better medicine?

After all, nobody want a kid with a below average intelligence score or mental disease, or physical deformities. Why not expand the right to choose to include not just if but how a woman reproduces?

Pro Darwinist might even argue that this is a imperative that we SHOULD abort below average fetuses and do everything medicine can to continue the evolution of our species.

Does this scenario seem scary to you? It should, because at its root is moral relativism. Moral relativism only serves the one in control not the other affected. Do you really think you are in control of the major parts of your life?
Morals exist to protect and provide justice.

If you hate the whole abortion thing. What about 'honor killings'? they still happen today across the world and are considered acceptable behavior in the areas where it happens. Why should we care? To them it is a moral behavior. to each their own

The_Jazz · 09-25-2007, 01:09 PM

I don't understand why the UN is being held up as some sort of gold standard of morals. It was never intended to be such. It seems to me to that you've pulled one word out of one part of the charter to use it in a predefined context that doesn't fit its original intent.

As you alluded to in your final paragraph, morals are relative. It seems you would impose universal morals over the entirety of the human race, at least as far abortion goes. On it's face, that's an unworkable premise. Accepting the existance of magic wands for a moment, the imposition of a universal morality strikes me as facist. Why should your morals be imposed on the Afgans or the Russians?

Diminishing this idea from worldwide to the US, it remains equally unworkable. If I again suspend that as fact, I find myself once again confronted by the imposition of a morality that is not shared by all or even a majority. I don't accept that "most" reject designer babies. I think that "most" reject the idea that other people shouldn't get advantages, but if faced with the opportunity, I think that the vast majority of people would take the chance to increase their offspring's viability and potential success. I know I would. Darwinism by popular opinion remains a distinct possibility and one I doubt anyone can derail.

Kryptoni · 09-25-2007, 04:56 PM

Thanks for the response.
I used the UN so I could point to a definition outside of my own. I agree that is not a gold standard.

My concern about moral relativism is that it can lead to injustice. If you are not the majority, you cannot set the morals, therefore, you don't matter.

I love the USA because dissenting opinions are not only accepted by expected. This leads to better solutions in my humble opinion.

With the risk of sounding tyrannical (jk) I do think some morals are basic and fundamental similar to the ones defined by the UN statement on human rights

Baraka_Guru · 09-25-2007, 05:11 PM

I don't think Darwinists would agree with aborting "below average" fetuses. (You haven't clearly defined what "below average" would mean.) Nor would they necessarily want to use biotechnology to "enhance" others. I think a Darwinist would prefer to let nature take its course, rather then meddle with it. They might even argue that the human mind cannot begin to understand the mechanisms of evolution to have any real (or proper) control over it. This also runs into past problems with such ideas as social Darwinism and eugenics. I hope to leave such ideas in the past.

And moral relativism is a frightening thing. I don't believe such a thing exists. I would like to think that what is morally wrong for one is morally wrong for all.

The_Jazz · 09-26-2007, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

And moral relativism is a frightening thing. I don't believe such a thing exists. I would like to think that what is morally wrong for one is morally wrong for all.

Baraka, the more I think about the above, the less I agree with it. For every moral "absolute" I can come up with, I can think of exceptions. The existance of exceptions seem to corrupt the claim of any moral to be absolute. For instance, is it murder if a soldier is greviously wounded and asks his buddy to put him out of his misery? Is it even murder? Is canalbalism ok if it is the sole means to keep someone else alive? What if it's culturally acceptable? Are people outside that culture justified in attempting eliminate that practice.

DaveOrion · 09-26-2007, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Baraka, the more I think about the above, the less I agree with it. For every moral "absolute" I can come up with, I can think of exceptions. The existance of exceptions seem to corrupt the claim of any moral to be absolute. For instance, is it murder if a soldier is greviously wounded and asks his buddy to put him out of his misery? Is it even murder? Is canalbalism ok if it is the sole means to keep someone else alive? What if it's culturally acceptable? Are people outside that culture justified in attempting eliminate that practice.

OMG, I actually agree. I was thinking of morality killings, where an adulterous women is burned or murdered in some other way. That would never be accepted anywhere outside the middle east. Certain Muslims condone the practice and even embrace it, yet westerners are horrified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kryptoni

Well, after being accused of 'trolling' the abortion thread, I figured I'd open a different one that expounds upon philosophy I was trying to communicate (unsuccessfully).

Dont worry about what others say, if you have a strong opinion then state it, if someone doesnt like it, to fuckin bad.

The_Jazz · 09-26-2007, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

Dont worry about what others say, if you have a strong opinion then state it, if someone doesnt like it, to fuckin bad.

Not quite, Dave. From the TFP Guidelines:

Quote:

4. No baiting (trolling) - Posting comments with the intention to draw the ire of your fellow board members is just as bad as insulting them directly.

There is a well-defined line, and to single you out for a moment, Dave, you've done very well in staying on the good side of it. We expect everyone here to follow the same rules, and while you're encouraged to state your opinion, doing so in a way that will create a flame war is expressly forbidden.

Kryptoni · 09-26-2007, 05:31 AM

So if morals are relative, or situational based, then who defines when the situation is justified or not? The person making the decision? Or the society in which he/she is a member?

I think there are absolute morals, BUT, at a society level, not universal. Society's set expectations of what is considered 'normal' or 'abnormal'. For example, in many eastern societies, eating dog is no different than a chicken. But, for western societies, it is considered 'abnormal'.

I think the same thing applies to abortion. But, instead of the usual context of geography / race defining the societal norms, it tends to fall more along religious lines. After all if your faith subscribes to the idea of a soul imparted by your God at the time of conception, it is not acceptable behavior to abort. However, many western civilizations have weakened the influence of religion on societal norms, and thus abortion is legal and considered acceptable to a majority.

It think that is the root to why we may never see and end to the debate of abortion. To end the debate we must prove beyond a doubt of the existence of a soul. Some would argue that science has with the study of quantum physics string theory and the recent news of mathematically proving the existence of multiple dimensions.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...-test-for.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai.../sciuni121.xml
But I'm digressing....

roachboy · 09-26-2007, 06:13 AM

i think this question of ethics is caught in a false binary as they say: either ethics are transcendent or they are situational. this opposition is not new and generally gets advanced by folk who come out of a religious background and expresses their underlying belief that without some god-term, there can be no ethics...this is usually of a piece with a kind of panic about human autonomy, which gets run out via sequences of scenarios during the course of which the writer gets to fret about situational ethics and that sort of thing. the premise is generally: if human beings make up the rules that govern their own behaviour, then there can be and is considerable variability in what is understood as ok.

from a viewpoint informed by dreams of a transcendent ethics, presumably one dropped by a god, relativism means anything goes.
the selection of scenarios to fret about is generally meant, one way or another, to reinforce the claim that anything goes.

so lots of folk who work in ethics look for some type of overarching guidlines or a set of claims about norms that they can substitute for the god-term. because ethics is itself relative, internally relative: it is an applied philosophy. in this context, it makes some sense to point to united nations charter and other documents---the impulse is to locate a transcednetn grid of norms and then busy oneself with application problems.

what is strange in this is the assumptions about human agency and capabilities that underpin it. if you move from a christian/kantian frame to a secular one, going from stuff this god character said to the un charter, you would think that the conception of human agency would change along with it--but often it doesn't--human beings ae still meat puppets that left to themselves perform the consequences of original sin--they are incapable of managing themselves, they need some Big Daddy to lay down the Law because.....well why exactly? i mean if you are going to pine for religion as if it worked against the degenerate tendencies of us meat puppets, you have to forget that human beings made religion.

you could also say that a religions tend to substitute a reward/punishment structure for choice and in so doing erase the space for autonomous action. nietzsche said as much, and pretty convincingly.

anyway....
there are 3 levels at play in the thread already--transcendence/god; social norms; situational ethics.

Quote:

So if morals are relative, or situational based, then who defines when the situation is justified or not? The person making the decision? Or the society in which he/she is a member?

the first question seems to me the wrong way round--an action would define the situation and not the reverse. imagine a tribunal that reviews ethical decisions and what the argument before that tribunal would be, how they'd work. each argument concerning an action would be a narrative about the situation. each narrative would be an attempt to define the situation. the situation and action define each other.

i think that the rules of the game we play are social.
because of the characteristics of words, we can map these social rules onto a transcendent register---what you make of that move is an aesthetic matter.
situational ethics has more to do with individual interpretations of social norms.

i dont know if this gets to the question i set out to address.
it is early in the morning and i am stil drinking coffee to wake up---i'll revisit this later, once i am awake.

Ustwo · 09-26-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Pro Darwinist might even argue that this is a imperative that we SHOULD abort below average fetuses and do everything medicine can to continue the evolution of our species.

Being a Darwinist myself I'll state it doesn't really matter. The species will continue to evolve no matter what. Selection pressures will be based on the environment at hand. There is no direction for this evolution. Mothers aborting their fetuses healthy or otherwise still fit the mold of evolution.

Modern medicine does allow some diseases back into the gene pool that under 'natural' conditions would not survive, a Darwinist doesn't worry about it.

There is more to this of course, but no a Darwinist doesn't care. What you are confusing Darwinist with is a eugenist. Eugenics is the concept of a directed evolution, its much poopooed do to the Nazi connection with humans but its what we've done with all of our domesticated plants and animals.

roachboy · 09-26-2007, 07:31 AM

sidebar to ustwo's post:

eugenics and social darwinism--which is a lovely steaming brown gift left to us by herbert spenser.

most of the mapping of darwin onto human populations owes everything to spenser, who managed to strip almost all the interest out of darwin. for example, spenser compresses the time-frame that darwin was working with. spenser is responsible for the reductive and problematic gloss on "fitness" and survival---in darwin, these are complicated questions. in spenser, they aren't.
reading darwin, you reach a point where you cannot tell if the problem with evolutionary accounts is the time-frame or the categories that we use to order natural phenomena---that one type of organism mutates gradually into another: is that or is that not problematic? well it is problematic if you conflate the way we categorize natural phenomena with the way they are--particularly is you are thinking in terms of very long time-frames.

anyway spenser. i dont know why he gets erased all the time and darwin plugged into the place spenser leaves behind.

and eugenics is a twist on spenser, not darwin.

there. my tiresome historian side feels better now.

Orange · 09-26-2007, 09:27 AM

While I do try not to dive into this topic too much considering how biased and controversial it is, ill say a little about what I think.

If a woman becomes pregnant but does not want the baby, why not just go through with it and have a couple who can't procreate adopt it? Why does society have to tip their hand at stupidity and even consider abortion in the face of lazyness.

Anyways there will never be an end to this discussion. Too many people with different religious and moral standards could never agree with each other. With topics like this, its either do or don't.

Kryptoni · 09-26-2007, 12:48 PM

Roachboy - Good point on Darwin v Spencer. I'll have to read up on that.

On the other point of the Christian lens, well you got me there too, I did come from a Christian family. Can't do anything about that!

My concern which I just can't let go of is that situational ethics as a interesting issue. Given that societal norms influence situational ethics through personal interpretation, I can't see how we as a race will ever evolve beyond the sheep and the sheppard mentality.

Everything we do is defined by our understanding of the 'laws of nature' or behavioral norms for a specific society. If you fall outside of these 'elements' you suffer the consequences.

Take the example the girls in Muslim countries still being 'murdered' by their family in the name of family 'honor'. To their society, it is understandable but to us, it is horrific. Why should it be any more or less horrific than aborting a fetus if your society subscribes to the norm of a God and a soul?

Therefore, the issue of abortion is broader and not about when life begins but rather if there is a soul or a God?

(Note: above is just my humble personal opinion and NOT meant to bait or insult your beliefs or values)

The_Jazz · 09-26-2007, 01:08 PM

I think that you're just trying to backdoor us back into the abortion debate, which has it's own separate, active thread that you've already posted in - and mentioned that you've posted in.

If Western Society granted the existance of not only God and not only a soul but imparted that soul into a xygote at conception, then your abortion argument would be valid, at least on it's face. Unfortunately, Western Society does none of those things as the simple phrase "Western Society" is a catchall to describe some linked political economies. "Society" in general is a purely local phenomenon that, much like subatomic particles, grows more complex the deeper one looks. At the end "society" ends up as individual interpretations of the world and as such can't really be completely translated to a large number. There will ALWAYS be dissenters on some topic within the moral rhealm, and that holds true within the abortion debate as well as any other political topic of your choosing.

As I said in my first post, there are no universal morals - for every one you think you can find, I am sure you can also find an exception. Morals, by definition, should be absolute, so applying them universally is ludicrous when any rule you can concoct would have to have numerous exceptions.

Hyacinthe · 09-26-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

I think that you're just trying to backdoor us back into the abortion debate, which has it's own separate, active thread that you've already posted in - and mentioned that you've posted in.

I agree - reading this the same arguments are stated as in the abortion thread, nothing new really.

You might like to think that there are universal morals, that some aspect of humanity involves realising right from wrong but it simply isn't so.

As long as humanity has been around we have been murdering, thieving, raping and torturing eachother in the name of numerous things gain, war, religion, honour. Do any of these reasons change the fact that someone has died, that they won't have the chance to live their life and see their loved ones again?

So right and wrong are obviously for some flexible ideas - I for one consider it wrong to beat up and old man and steal his wallet, this happened roughly a month ago in my city.

One of the scariest movies I have ever seen involved a mentally handicapped woman who lived with her husband out of town - he was injured and she thought she would 'fix' him. There was an image of her in the kitchen with a cleaver and then a shot of the bench covered in bloody cooking implements - she thought she was doing the right thing. That sense of her rightness (in her eyes) was what terrified me.

Does it really then matter if you say something is right or wrong? People are going to do it anyway, and probably think they're right. Accept that as fact and move on.

Kryptoni · 09-27-2007, 04:51 AM

OK.. I'll drop any further reference to abortion. While I see a connection, I'll refrain from diverting the discussion.

My interest for starting this topic is to discuss moral relativism, the impact on human rights, and how it is influenced by culture and religion.

Will right more later.. need some coffee

JohnBua · 09-27-2007, 10:33 AM

I think culture is a poor excuse. Behaviors should be examened objectivly and not just condoned due to it being part of a culture. The Thuggies were a culture, so do we excuse ritual strangulation? Nazisim was a culture so due we excuse genocide? Some cultures practiced cannablism, or slavery. Every time I see someone blow off a poor behavior due to it being "cultural" I get inflamed, a la Michael Vick.

09-25-2007, 12:49 PM	#1 (permalink)
Kryptoni Upright Location: Baltimore, MD	Influences on Human Rights, Culture, Religion Well, after being accused of 'trolling' the abortion thread, I figured I'd open a different one that expounds upon philosophy I was trying to communicate (unsuccessfully). The United Nations defines Basic Human rights as follows - http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html The fist one being - "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." From an pro-abortion standpoint the key word is born. From a anti-abortion standpoint (notice I'm staying away from the political position labels), the word born is not the defining element in the statement Many on both side of the issue think 'late-term' abortion is borderline euthanasia since many experts agree a fetus is 'potentially' viable beyond week 26 of gestation. I don't desire to start a duplicate thread to debate abortion as a right/wrong. Rather explore the implications of the CURRENT state of affairs on our society from our definition of Human Rights, Culture, and Religion. Society and cultures have rules. Rules that define acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It's been the recent involvement of the government into the family structure that is changing the definition of our culture and society. The passing of Roe v Wade and more importantly the advancement of medicine (i.e. pill, morning after pill, etc) that are changing the fundamentals of our culture. Where choice didn't exist before, it now exist and is argued to be a basic human right. Let's extrapolate that right a little more. Most would agree that genetic selection (i.e. 'designer babies') is a immoral action. But why? If it is a right of the woman to abort a fetus because it is simply 'unwanted', is it not more acceptable that we do everything to enhance their choice through better medicine? After all, nobody want a kid with a below average intelligence score or mental disease, or physical deformities. Why not expand the right to choose to include not just if but how a woman reproduces? Pro Darwinist might even argue that this is a imperative that we SHOULD abort below average fetuses and do everything medicine can to continue the evolution of our species. Does this scenario seem scary to you? It should, because at its root is moral relativism. Moral relativism only serves the one in control not the other affected. Do you really think you are in control of the major parts of your life? Morals exist to protect and provide justice. If you hate the whole abortion thing. What about 'honor killings'? they still happen today across the world and are considered acceptable behavior in the areas where it happens. Why should we care? To them it is a moral behavior. to each their own __________________ *Two Ball Cain?*

09-25-2007, 01:09 PM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I don't understand why the UN is being held up as some sort of gold standard of morals. It was never intended to be such. It seems to me to that you've pulled one word out of one part of the charter to use it in a predefined context that doesn't fit its original intent. As you alluded to in your final paragraph, morals are relative. It seems you would impose universal morals over the entirety of the human race, at least as far abortion goes. On it's face, that's an unworkable premise. Accepting the existance of magic wands for a moment, the imposition of a universal morality strikes me as facist. Why should your morals be imposed on the Afgans or the Russians? Diminishing this idea from worldwide to the US, it remains equally unworkable. If I again suspend that as fact, I find myself once again confronted by the imposition of a morality that is not shared by all or even a majority. I don't accept that "most" reject designer babies. I think that "most" reject the idea that other people shouldn't get advantages, but if faced with the opportunity, I think that the vast majority of people would take the chance to increase their offspring's viability and potential success. I know I would. Darwinism by popular opinion remains a distinct possibility and one I doubt anyone can derail. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-25-2007, 04:56 PM	#3 (permalink)
Kryptoni Upright Location: Baltimore, MD	Thanks for the response. I used the UN so I could point to a definition outside of my own. I agree that is not a gold standard. My concern about moral relativism is that it can lead to injustice. If you are not the majority, you cannot set the morals, therefore, you don't matter. I love the USA because dissenting opinions are not only accepted by expected. This leads to better solutions in my humble opinion. With the risk of sounding tyrannical (jk) I do think some morals are basic and fundamental similar to the ones defined by the UN statement on human rights __________________ *Two Ball Cain?*

09-25-2007, 05:11 PM	#4 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I don't think Darwinists would agree with aborting "below average" fetuses. (You haven't clearly defined what "below average" would mean.) Nor would they necessarily want to use biotechnology to "enhance" others. I think a Darwinist would prefer to let nature take its course, rather then meddle with it. They might even argue that the human mind cannot begin to understand the mechanisms of evolution to have any real (or proper) control over it. This also runs into past problems with such ideas as social Darwinism and eugenics. I hope to leave such ideas in the past. And moral relativism is a frightening thing. I don't believe such a thing exists. I would like to think that what is morally wrong for one is morally wrong for all. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-25-2007 at 05:13 PM..

09-26-2007, 05:31 AM	#8 (permalink)
Kryptoni Upright Location: Baltimore, MD	So if morals are relative, or situational based, then who defines when the situation is justified or not? The person making the decision? Or the society in which he/she is a member? I think there are absolute morals, BUT, at a society level, not universal. Society's set expectations of what is considered 'normal' or 'abnormal'. For example, in many eastern societies, eating dog is no different than a chicken. But, for western societies, it is considered 'abnormal'. I think the same thing applies to abortion. But, instead of the usual context of geography / race defining the societal norms, it tends to fall more along religious lines. After all if your faith subscribes to the idea of a soul imparted by your God at the time of conception, it is not acceptable behavior to abort. However, many western civilizations have weakened the influence of religion on societal norms, and thus abortion is legal and considered acceptable to a majority. It think that is the root to why we may never see and end to the debate of abortion. To end the debate we must prove beyond a doubt of the existence of a soul. Some would argue that science has with the study of quantum physics string theory and the recent news of mathematically proving the existence of multiple dimensions. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...-test-for.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai.../sciuni121.xml But I'm digressing.... __________________ *Two Ball Cain?* Last edited by Kryptoni; 09-26-2007 at 05:39 AM..

09-26-2007, 07:31 AM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	sidebar to ustwo's post: eugenics and social darwinism--which is a lovely steaming brown gift left to us by herbert spenser. most of the mapping of darwin onto human populations owes everything to spenser, who managed to strip almost all the interest out of darwin. for example, spenser compresses the time-frame that darwin was working with. spenser is responsible for the reductive and problematic gloss on "fitness" and survival---in darwin, these are complicated questions. in spenser, they aren't. reading darwin, you reach a point where you cannot tell if the problem with evolutionary accounts is the time-frame or the categories that we use to order natural phenomena---that one type of organism mutates gradually into another: is that or is that not problematic? well it is problematic if you conflate the way we categorize natural phenomena with the way they are--particularly is you are thinking in terms of very long time-frames. anyway spenser. i dont know why he gets erased all the time and darwin plugged into the place spenser leaves behind. and eugenics is a twist on spenser, not darwin. there. my tiresome historian side feels better now. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-26-2007, 09:27 AM	#12 (permalink)
Orange Upright Location: Virginia	While I do try not to dive into this topic too much considering how biased and controversial it is, ill say a little about what I think. If a woman becomes pregnant but does not want the baby, why not just go through with it and have a couple who can't procreate adopt it? Why does society have to tip their hand at stupidity and even consider abortion in the face of lazyness. Anyways there will never be an end to this discussion. Too many people with different religious and moral standards could never agree with each other. With topics like this, its either do or don't.

09-26-2007, 12:48 PM	#13 (permalink)
Kryptoni Upright Location: Baltimore, MD	Roachboy - Good point on Darwin v Spencer. I'll have to read up on that. On the other point of the Christian lens, well you got me there too, I did come from a Christian family. Can't do anything about that! My concern which I just can't let go of is that situational ethics as a interesting issue. Given that societal norms influence situational ethics through personal interpretation, I can't see how we as a race will ever evolve beyond the sheep and the sheppard mentality. Everything we do is defined by our understanding of the 'laws of nature' or behavioral norms for a specific society. If you fall outside of these 'elements' you suffer the consequences. Take the example the girls in Muslim countries still being 'murdered' by their family in the name of family 'honor'. To their society, it is understandable but to us, it is horrific. Why should it be any more or less horrific than aborting a fetus if your society subscribes to the norm of a God and a soul? Therefore, the issue of abortion is broader and not about when life begins but rather if there is a soul or a God? (Note: above is just my humble personal opinion and NOT meant to bait or insult your beliefs or values) __________________ *Two Ball Cain?*

09-26-2007, 01:08 PM	#14 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I think that you're just trying to backdoor us back into the abortion debate, which has it's own separate, active thread that you've already posted in - and mentioned that you've posted in. If Western Society granted the existance of not only God and not only a soul but imparted that soul into a xygote at conception, then your abortion argument would be valid, at least on it's face. Unfortunately, Western Society does none of those things as the simple phrase "Western Society" is a catchall to describe some linked political economies. "Society" in general is a purely local phenomenon that, much like subatomic particles, grows more complex the deeper one looks. At the end "society" ends up as individual interpretations of the world and as such can't really be completely translated to a large number. There will ALWAYS be dissenters on some topic within the moral rhealm, and that holds true within the abortion debate as well as any other political topic of your choosing. As I said in my first post, there are no universal morals - for every one you think you can find, I am sure you can also find an exception. Morals, by definition, should be absolute, so applying them universally is ludicrous when any rule you can concoct would have to have numerous exceptions. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-27-2007, 04:51 AM	#16 (permalink)
Kryptoni Upright Location: Baltimore, MD	OK.. I'll drop any further reference to abortion. While I see a connection, I'll refrain from diverting the discussion. My interest for starting this topic is to discuss moral relativism, the impact on human rights, and how it is influenced by culture and religion. Will right more later.. need some coffee __________________ *Two Ball Cain?*

09-27-2007, 10:33 AM	#17 (permalink)
JohnBua Banned	I think culture is a poor excuse. Behaviors should be examened objectivly and not just condoned due to it being part of a culture. The Thuggies were a culture, so do we excuse ritual strangulation? Nazisim was a culture so due we excuse genocide? Some cultures practiced cannablism, or slavery. Every time I see someone blow off a poor behavior due to it being "cultural" I get inflamed, a la Michael Vick.