I work as an escort at an abortion clinic, ask questions or troll as you see fit.

[flomo]

How much does it pay?

Is this a second job?

Can you ask what type of birth control they tried?

[Luco]

So, you're helping to drop the kids off?

[jackvance]

Amoral exists legally, scientifically, philosophically, psychologically, colloquially.. in what way does it not exist?

[surviva316]

Amoral exists legally, scientifically, philosophically, psychologically, colloquially.. in what way does it not exist?

There are good ways to spend your time, talents, etc, and there are poor ways to spend your time, talents, etc. There are things in between--actions that, once all factors are decision, are more or less breakeven--but the idea that this applies to entire classes of actions is ridiculous. And there certainly aren't actions where you can say "It's not for morality to judge." Refer back to my post to wufwugy to see how this can't even make sense. Morality is, essentially, the judgment of actions, so if there's an action, it's within the realm of morality to judge.

Our culture's impression of morality is rooted in the judeo-christian tradition of sin/redemption/commandments/testaments/etc, and so we naturally think that so long as what we're doing doesn't constitute as a sin (or isn't illegal) that we're outside the realm of evaluation. This is plainly wrong. To reiterate the analogy, if you like your steak well-done, then asking for it rare is an action with poor value.

Now, it might be fairer to say that there are actions that are so low-stakes that it's not worth dissecting. Two things:

1) On a technical note: if it takes you a mentionable amount of time to commit this low-stake act, then it can be said that you are, if nothing else, making a poor investment of the limited time you have on this earth. This is actually perfectly analogous to poker: we calculate folding in poker as 0ev, but since folding is forfeiting of an opportunity to make money, and thus keeping pace with the blinds, even this isn't a truly indifferent decision.

2) On a much more relevant note: THE LAST THING THIS WOULD APPLY TO IS ABORTION anyway.

Abortion is a very high-stakes decision, where all of the values we way or extremely positive or extremely negative. Morality is in no way, shape, or form indifferent to whether you get an abortion or not: if you do not want a child, feel no attachment to the assortment of cells growing within you, and do not have proper resources (especially time or money) for supporting a child for the next 18 years, then morality is emphatically in your favor when you get an abortion; if you do want a child, feel a strong attachment with the one that is gestating in your womb, and your maturity level, bank account and calendar are prepared to do so, then morality is going to be in a rage when you get an abortion.

I agree that the fact that an act is an abortion is insufficient to determine whether it's good or bad (which, btw, is true of literally any action). But to say that it's amoral--that just because the term "abortion" applies to the action you're taking means that the action you're taking can neither be moral or immoral--is absolutely ridiculous.

[wufwugy]

Morality is, essentially, the judgment of actions, so if there's an action, it's within the realm of morality to judge.

That doesn't negate amorality. Using your verbiage, amorality is an effect of actions regardless of judgment

It seems that you're defining morality the same as is defined the economic concept of opportunity costs. It's an interesting idea, but making a "should" or "ought" judgment, regardless of what it is, is still a moral imposition onto something that is inherently amoral. Opportunity costs aren't real. The physical universe doesn't determine them. What you or I feel or believe create the opportunity costs. We can go through life making nothing but decisions, all based in morality, yet the "truth" behind them is still amorality

Furthermore, you're begging the question when you say there are "good" or "poor" decisions you can make. Those concepts are emergent of thoughts and feelings. When we talk about the world we've constructed around us, it is reasonable to say "right" or "wrong", but if we dig deeper, that morality breaks down. We may judge abortion as right or wrong based on any conceivable criteria, but the universe, the basal truth of the matter, doesn't have this judgment embedded into it.

[spoonitnow]

I agree that the fact that an act is an abortion is insufficient to determine whether it's good or bad (which, btw, is true of literally any action). But to say that it's amoral--that just because the term "abortion" applies to the action you're taking means that the action you're taking can neither be moral or immoral--is absolutely ridiculous.

This bit makes me think you misunderstand what amoral means. It doesn't mean that it's neither moral or immoral, it means that you disregard morality completely.

[kingnat]

Have you ever had to escort someone who was in a wheelchair, who had crutches or who otherwise had a difficult time getting around? If so, what was that like dealing with the jackoffs?

No, this hasn't happened. It's interesting to think of what the protestors would say... it'd probably be condescending and shitty though.. and I don't say that just to sound bitter. They'd honestly say those things because thats how they think.

[kingnat]

How much does it pay?

Is this a second job?

Can you ask what type of birth control they tried?

It's purely volunteer. Like I said before, I don't say anything to the women except what is necessary to let them know why i'm there and to get them into the clinic with the minimum amount of shitty interference.

[spoonitnow]

No, this hasn't happened. It's interesting to think of what the protestors would say... it'd probably be condescending and shitty though.. and I don't say that just to sound bitter. They'd honestly say those things because thats how they think.

Do any one of the people protesting ever pose as escorts, walk the girl up to everybody else, and then yell "Get her!" at which point they surround the girl and yell mean shit?

[surviva316]

This bit makes me think you misunderstand what amoral means. It doesn't mean that it's neither moral or immoral, it means that you disregard morality completely.

Again, though, I reject this possibility offhand.

Everyone sets values on actions, regardless of whether they:

• Are students of ethics or ignorant to it
• Are considerative or whimsical
• Have beliefs are set in stone or change from day-to-day, hour-to-hour
• Value results for themselves over results for anyone else
• Place simplistic, short-term values on happiness (eg: hedonists, people who might say "Life is a beach", etc) or value long-term gains enough to make short-term sacrifices
• Find morality to be in the eye of the beholder or believe in universal values that everyone shares

Whatever. None of these demonstrate indifference to morality; they're simply different approaches to it. Unless you live life by an RNG, to whose results you are dispassionate, or unless you are a stone, you have a moral compass.

I don't want to pretend to know you better than you know yourself, but for the sake of classification, I have seen your thoughts on several moral quandaries at this point (the Red Button, for example), and I wouldn't at all consider you amoral. Your views are a bit off the beaten path of popular moral codes, but again, you're not as dispassionate as a stone about the actions you take--or even the areas where you are dispassionate, this is a conscious approach used to get best results.[1]

The best counter I can imagine is a Humeian argument that actually does equate the impetus of human action to Natural Law. This is tough to do in summary, but essentially Hume argues that we can ask why anything ultimately happens, we can't really know. We obviously are much "closer" now than we were in Hume's time to understanding (to use his example) why the sun rises every morning, insofar as we understand the underlying mechanics of it much more, but we still don't so much understand WHY gravity operates as it does; we know the laws, but we don't know WHY everything actually follows them.

Yet we intuitively attribute any non-understood impetus for our own actions to "choices." Free Will essentially is a god of the gaps as far as Hume is concerned, used to explain away things that we don't understand about ourselves even though we have the very same non-understandings of inanimate objects. Maybe a stone chooses shift this way or that, or that mass-to-mass attractions is only a near-necessary attraction that is only an empirically predictable phenomenon because (after all, quantum mechanics supports the fact that there may be a modicum of randomness in an electron's movements; that an electron cloud is a representation of probability); or, conversely, maybe man doesn't choose to gravitate toward pussy or 10 year olds toward ice cream, and value is only a measure of probability, though obviously applied to a MUCH MUCH more complicated system than the stone is.

(This is obviously very closely related to Determinism, though the twist is that Hume wasn't necessarily arguing Determinism. He was more so making an epistemological argument that we can't know the difference between Free Will, determinism and some mad anthropomorphism, as a way of turning our own hubris over the mysticism of why we do what we do in on itself.)

So I COULD see some Humeian support for the the fact that you and I and everyone ARE in fact operating in nonmoral systems.

I think this is kinda getting far from the topic at hand and isn't really what you wish to argue, but it's an interesting enough tangent to include for completeness's sake, imho.

[1] FWIW, as far as moral philosophies that are completely antithetical to my own go, your approach to morality is my favorite, because I can't possibly disprove it. I like to say that if you boil down all human moral philosophy, you would be left with irreducible bits at the bottom of the crucible; it takes a certain leap of faith (literally the smallest application of faith humanly possible, but a leap nonetheless) to go from caring about the results of our actions to caring about how the results of our actions affect anything outside of our sphere of perception. Regardless, though, they're both forms of morality--it's just that one has sustained many more millennia of dispute than the other has.

[surviva316]

It seems that you're defining morality the same as is defined the economic concept of opportunity costs. It's an interesting idea, but making a "should" or "ought" judgment, regardless of what it is, is still a moral imposition onto something that is inherently amoral. Opportunity costs aren't real. The physical universe doesn't determine them. What you or I feel or believe create the opportunity costs. We can go through life making nothing but decisions, all based in morality, yet the "truth" behind them is still amorality

The whole, "Even doing nothing is doing nothing" thing was an aside as much as anything else, which is why I put the beginning of the next section in all caps. I disagree with this paragraph, but it's so irrelevant to abortion that I'll put it in a footnote just to emphasize its ancillary nature.[1] The point is ABORTION IS MOST DECIDEDLY NOT A LOW-STAKES DECISION! It is either highly moral, highly immoral or--given the negation of massive terms that are difficult to quantify and weigh against each other--a difficult moral quandary that might fall somewhere around breakeven.

Furthermore, you're begging the question when you say there are "good" or "poor" decisions you can make.

I'm not meaning to beg the question: I tried to establish my thoughts on morality off-hand and that operate on that assumption as I moved on. I didn't mean for my proceeding points on morality to prove my initial one on how morality exists and is worth it.

Those concepts are emergent of thoughts and feelings. When we talk about the world we've constructed around us, it is reasonable to say "right" or "wrong", but if we dig deeper, that morality breaks down. We may judge abortion as right or wrong based on any conceivable criteria, but the universe, the basal truth of the matter, doesn't have this judgment embedded into it.

FWIW, I believe that value of action--much like aesthetics--are subjective, and I am an ardent existentialist. I do not believe we are the chosen people following the universe's laws of primacy; I do not believe that are actions have effects that extend to all ends of the universe: from spatial end to end, from the time the act was committed right to the universe's ultimate instance. I don't know what you mean by "digging deeper" or morality "breaking down", but I do agree that "right" and "wrong" does not extend much beyond "When we talk about the world we've constructed around us."

To this, I say, "So what?" I don't understand why humans have this natural inclination that it's all or nothing when it comes to the value of their actions: either we're God-by-Extension or I am meaningless cog in an indifferent machine[2] (Shelly Kagan makes a similar argument in a debate with William Lane Craig here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo, though he takes it one step further to argue that it matters objectively, and I even think that *that* is a superfluous step). It might sound truistic, but our actions affect--at the very very least--the sentient beings that they affect. I don't know how my actions would be perceived by Marglarb the Elder on Planet Marglarb or a hypothetical god or any other arbiter, but by definition, my actions don't affect them, so I don't give a fuck. The very fact that the subjects of my actions are online enough to care about how they're affected necessitates that my action has value. I can disregard that value in favor of the values I place on my own actions (and as I said to spoon, I can't prove the inferiority of a moral system that does exactly that), but that requires that I value my own actions.

Besides, universal, objective standards wouldn't be the end-all, be-all anyway. What if multiple universes exist, and the objective standard there differs from our own? Do we suddenly feel like even universal, objective standards are worthless because the action *would* be valued oppositely if performed in a whole other universe? No, it's an asinine standard to apply to the value of actions.

Worry about the subjects of your action. How would all affected parties value the expected results of various choices? When you consider that, you consider all you need to. Beyond that, *shrug* haters gone hate.

Either I am a God-by-Extension or I am nothing. This doesn't mean I am a We are a part of the universe; we may only be able to affect a small percentage of humans within a small percentage of their history which itself makes up a small percentage of not only sentient life (as though that's all that matters) but the universe's timeline as a whole, but we still affect the universe with our actions.

[1] Doing nothing with your time on this earth is not simply an opportunity cost because we are mortal. If you'd prefer, we are given a budget of x amount of time, and the way that we spend each day within that time is an expenditure. If you spend days within that budget with the resultant of nothing, then you have spent time poorly.

This is exactly why there's an inherent fascination when people ask how you would spend your life if you were immortal. When time is no longer of the essence, it is no longer incumbent on any second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year or indeed even century to be "worth" the time "spent" to get y results. You could do nothing but earn 0.00000000001 morality points per day, and your lifetime would still be infinitely valuable; as such, ambitious action is less important than ensuring positive return.

Again, though, this is completely irrelevant to this discussion, so if you don't agree, then agree to disagree. I only get in a huge tizzy over this when I'm making the argument that people should be judged by the good they do as much as by the mistakes they make. Again, since we grow up in a culture that sees morality simply as avoiding transgressions (aspiring to perfection), the idea of doing as much good with your life as you can (aspiring to optimization) goes underappreciated.

[2] I speak confidently of this natural inclination humans have because I feel it, too. Hell, I don't think my protagonist cares about what he does in life unless it appeals to some kind of Higher Standard, which is why his atheism is so problematic.

[spoonitnow]

Evaluation of the quality of a decision does not imply morality.

[d0zer]

************* WORD COUNT **************
spoonitnow: 62
surviva: over 9000
************* RESULTS *****************
spoonitnow wins the troll-off

[surviva316]

************* WORD COUNT **************
spoonitnow: 62
surviva: over 9000
************* RESULTS *****************
spoonitnow wins the troll-off

I don't think spoon is (out-and-out) trolling. Pretty much everything he's said in this thread seems consistent with the spoon I know outside of the FTR Commune post-2011.

[wufwugy]

I am sometimes unsure of what your point is. Some of what you said is what I would say to demonstrate amorality

Abortion is a morality decision for humans, but that doesn't mean it's morality for the universe. Inherent to your argument is the existence of value, which is increased or decreased based on decisions. We can take that and apply it to the world beneath human experience, and find that there is no increasing or decreasing of value based on anything we do.

Value and morality are concepts that depend on conscious arbiters. Amorality is a concept that exists despite that and isn't affected by it. If you could find that there isn't one thing that your value assessments don't affect, you would probably have disproven amorality. If we were to anthropomorphize the universe, its response to your decision to abort or not abort would be "I don't care. This determines nothing"

[surviva316]

Evaluation of the quality of a decision does not imply morality.

I generally find that the hold up with morality is that people don't see merit in the process of morality (of judging the value of actions)--that people think that it's perfectly reasonable to be indifferent to what values what actions hold on some objective scale. Arguing that we can evaluate actions all we want, but we don't *genuinely* value some actions more than others--that someone could burst into our house right now and strangle us to death with barbed wire right now and we would be indifferent to it--is something I'm not prepared to disprove.

I'm skeptical, but I can't say I have a rebuttal waiting in my back pocket.

[surviva316]

My point is, who cares what an anthropomorphized grain of sand on the far side of the galaxy thinks? Does it have to matter to everything for it to matter to anything? I don't see why it should. For someone with a purportedly practical conception of ethics, this is a terribly impractical way to approach the problem.

Why are value and morality (ie: value) contingent on conscious arbiters? You could probably argue that it's contingent on conscious beings, but why do they have to be impartial ones? The Jews of mid-century Germany, at the very least, valued their homes, lives, liberty, freedom from pain, nutrition and several other things (though this is technically speculation); they had friends and loved ones and such who also valued their continued existence; the Nazis may very well have valued the cathartic feeling of gassing their economic scapegoats. Why are ANY of those values disqualified simply because they're subjects of the case? Surely the relevant thoughts and feelings of the relevant parties are the most important values?

Now, you can make all sorts of moral conclusions based on what perspective you take on: most people (including myself) from utilitarians to categoricalists to mid-century German Jewish egoists would argue that the holocaust was immoral; prejudiced, utilitarian eugenicists would argue that the holocaust was moral; anti-social Germans who got pleasure out of torture would argue that the holocaust was moral. Clearly value and morality still exist, with or without an objective judge; everyone in the case values something.

Is there one capital "V" Value or capital "M" Morality? That's hotly disputed. But the affected sentient beings of our actions will certainly value our actions one way or another (including ourselves); consider all of those disparate and disputing values for the innumerable permutations of actions you can take, and you'll be doing fine for yourself. Let the judgements of the unaffected by the least of your concerns.

[surviva316]

Abortion is a morality decision for humans ...

I guess since you said this, we're potentially in agreement on what really matters. I just don't see why the sentence needs to go on from there.

[wufwugy]

I mentioned amorality because the anti-abortion movement assumes total universal morality (because of god). I went in the direction that if people use this as their foundation, I throw my hands in the air and tell them their god doesn't exist and the universe doesn't give a shit, so they're just making peoples lives worse by imposing their fantasies onto them

[boost]

I mentioned amorality because the anti-abortion movement assumes total universal morality (because of god). I went in the direction that if people use this as their foundation, I throw my hands in the air and tell them their god doesn't exist and the universe doesn't give a shit, so they're just making peoples lives worse by imposing their fantasies onto them

But this is not amorality, this is a-universal-morality, no? Insisting it is amorality forces us to throw up our hands, while taking the stance that there is no universal morality, or that it is unknowable (certainly by way of their book), allows us to explore the issue further. Claiming amorality just seems lazy here.

[wufwugy]

But this is not amorality, this is a-universal-morality, no? Insisting it is amorality forces us to throw up our hands, while taking the stance that there is no universal morality, or that it is unknowable (certainly by way of their book), allows us to explore the issue further. Claiming amorality just seems lazy here.

I'm not sure what you're asking

I don't think I was trying to use amorality as an explanation. It's my response to the anti-abortion movement that believes, without any concrete reasons, that there is universal morality (God's morality) and this means that they can be and are right about abortion. I don't know what else to say to that mentality other than to point out how god isn't real, the universe doesn't care, and they're simply just imposing their ideals onto others even when it hurts people

It was a side comment too. Nobody here made this anti-abortion case. Also I guess I thought surviva's claim that amorality doesn't exist is strange, so we went further into it

[boost]

Right, but your counter isn't that we live in an amoral universe, it's that either we can't know that we live in a universe with universal morality, or that we live in a universe with relative morality. I mean, right? Those two things are far different from an amoral universe.

Also, I find it strange that you are dissociating the universe with human trappings (morality) while treating it as this anthropomorphic entity which happens to not care. Not to sound all new-agey, but there is no partition between us and the universe, and we do have(maybe express is a better word?), at the very least, relative morality.

The reason I'm picking this nit is because I think, firstly, it's a more accurate depiction of reality, and furthermore, it's a much stronger foundation upon which a productive dialogue can be built. Claiming amorality has you throwing your hands in the air and the bible jockeys thinking of you as some sort of godless nihilist-- while moral relativity allows us to grant them their (albeit misguided) morality while showing them how absurd it is that they demand it be accepted as universal.

[wufwugy]

That's probably a better idea. I like throwing my hands in the air and telling people their gods don't care about them

It's reasonable to say we know we live in an amoral universe

Rhetorically, it is tough to discuss amorality without some odd anthropomorphizing

[boost]

I still don't see it as reasonable unless we consider the universe something separate from ourselves, or if we claim determinism, which I'm fine with, but it doesn't really offer any sort of productive avenues of discussion outside of discussing determinism itself.

[wufwugy]

So you too are saying amorality isn't real?

[d0zer]

I like the freakanomics correlation between abortion legislation in the ~70s and the drop in crime rates that followed in the ~90s

[wufwugy]

Do you have the data for that?

Best I know of is that crime reduction has been steady for quite some time and no cause has been determined

[Renton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legaliz...d_crime_effect

[OngBonga]

kingnat, are you armed?

[jackvance]

I see it more that mass media and mass communication ultimately quelch crime. I'd say that's the biggest factor. Crimes are only committed when the general public can't see them, that's exceedingly hard in today's world.

[bigred]

Hey KingNat,

I thought this thread was about you being an abortion escort. Not arguments about morality. Sorry I misunderstood!

[Chelle]

Hey KingNat,

I thought this thread was about you being an abortion escort. Not arguments about morality. Sorry I misunderstood!

.

[jackvance]

Bigred and Chelle seem to be pretty amoral.

[kingnat]

Do any one of the people protesting ever pose as escorts, walk the girl up to everybody else, and then yell "Get her!" at which point they surround the girl and yell mean shit?

I have no doubt that this has happened at other clinics but I haven't ever witnessed it happen. Most of the protesters do believe that they are there to help "council women" if you ask them. There are also tons of places that are set up to mislead women into thinking that they can't get an abortion because they are further along than they actually are or giving them other misleading information. They very often have advertising signage that is set up near to where abortion clinics are and use slogans like "you have options". Even though they're not offering anything of the sort.

[kingnat]

kingnat, are you armed?

Am I armed when I escort? No. I don't think that would be a particularly good idea to do that either.

I'm a pretty big guy though, so while I'm not playing the big strong tough guy while I'm there, I do use my size and the volume of my voice to my advantage. I'm quite certain that I'm an intimidating presence for the old white men who are there protesting. And in case you didn't know old, white men make up the majority of protesters.

[kingnat]

I like the freakanomics correlation between abortion legislation in the ~70s and the drop in crime rates that followed in the ~90s

I found that chapter to be particularly interesting. And logically it makes a great deal of sense. But I would've appreciated to seeing more of the data that he used to frame that argument. I don't know how you can find anything but the correlation in the data but as I recall they went through and systematically eliminated a huge number of other variables that didn't correlate.

[bikes]

I'm a pretty big guy though, so while I'm not playing the big strong tough guy while I'm there, I do use my size and the volume of my voice to my advantage.

Can confirm. When this man wants a hello hug there is no escape.

[OngBonga]

Am I armed when I escort? No. I don't think that would be a particularly good idea to do that either.

I'm a pretty big guy though, so while I'm not playing the big strong tough guy while I'm there, I do use my size and the volume of my voice to my advantage. I'm quite certain that I'm an intimidating presence for the old white men who are there protesting. And in case you didn't know old, white men make up the majority of protesters.

Yeah I noticed you say old guys were the typical protester. I'm assuming you're USA right? Respect for not being armed. I agree it wouldn't be a great idea, but at the same time you have to balance the risk that one of those protesters has a gun, certainly if you're States. It's less of a concern here in the UK of course, but even then I think I'd feel vulnerable without some form of defence. But then again I'm not a big guy and do not have an intimidating presence.

Why do you do this? Serious question. I find it odd that you'd do a risky job for nothing. Is this because it will look good on your CV or resume or whatever you guys calls it? Or because you want to help protect vulnerable women from nasty pasties like these old men with nothing better to do?

[spoonitnow]

I see it more that mass media and mass communication ultimately quelch crime. I'd say that's the biggest factor. Crimes are only committed when the general public can't see them, that's exceedingly hard in today's world.

What is the address of the bubble you live in?

[OngBonga]

What is the address of the bubble you live in?

Belgium. I imagine he kind of has a point when it comes to a small European nation with a small population. I wouldn't be surprised if it's easier to get away with a lot of crimes in a large country like the States, compared to Belgium, simply because large parts of the States are so remote.

[boost]

So you too are saying amorality isn't real?

You seem opposed to this conclusion for no reason other than your previous acceptance of the contrary.

[wufwugy]

I'm opposed to the conclusion because otherwise it means that quarks and gluons and gravity and hydrogen have moral purpose

Fundamental, universal morality is an incredible claim. Probably as incredible as the claim of the existence of god

[boost]

We are a bit off track here. You claimed the universe is amoral. I insist this is not true since the universe does not only consist of everything outside of ourselves, but includes us as well-- and we have morals, relative or not. And I think if we trace the root of this derailment back to a relevant source, we find an amoral universe vs a universe which has (likely relative) morality.

Does a rock have a moral compass? Does a black hole? A molecule of water? I feel safe saying, "no," but the fact that things within a set are without a quality, this doesn't mean the whole set is without that quality. Throwing your hands up and saying "Your god isn't real, and the universe doesn't care!" is both unproductive and intellectually lazy. And, for what it's worth, I don't mean that as an insult, but as a critique-- you've contributed a lot to this discussion and much more than most have the capacity for, including myself. If you have a frustration point with this discussion and that's the way out that lets you feel better, that's fine, but I'll still call you on it.

[jackvance]

Morals aren't exclusive to humans. A situation has been observed where a chimpanzee showed moral indignation. A female was seen beating a much bigger and stronger male, who let it happen and did not react. This is pretty unusual. The female chimp was hitting him because previously he had watched her being abused by some other chimpanzee and did not intervene. So here we can see what morals really are: they are a socially motivated behavior which comes from the neocortex which is capable of storing patterns which use other patterns as their building blocks.

So we can say, no brain = no morals. A brain but no neocortex = no morals. A brain and neocortex = these have some semblance of morals and the morals will be more complex the more neocortex there is.

[OngBonga]

My nut muck has morals.

[bigred]

And in case you didn't know old, white men make up the majority of protesters.

Sadly the case for the folks making the legislation on the subject as well...

[bigred]

Can confirm. When this man wants a hello hug there is no escape.

I've never received a KingNat hug

So incomplete

[wufwugy]

Morals aren't exclusive to humans. A situation has been observed where a chimpanzee showed moral indignation. A female was seen beating a much bigger and stronger male, who let it happen and did not react. This is pretty unusual. The female chimp was hitting him because previously he had watched her being abused by some other chimpanzee and did not intervene. So here we can see what morals really are: they are a socially motivated behavior which comes from the neocortex which is capable of storing patterns which use other patterns as their building blocks.

So we can say, no brain = no morals. A brain but no neocortex = no morals. A brain and neocortex = these have some semblance of morals and the morals will be more complex the more neocortex there is.

Much better way of putting things in perspective than what I've said

I think it may be possible to expand the definition of morality to include more than this, but I'm not sure. It would probably just be a marginal expansion at most. Too much expansion and the word loses its meaning, similar to how agnostics or atheist-enthusiasts are sometimes unwilling to say "god does not exist" because they're expanding the definition of god to include something almost entirely meaningless yet still trying to call it god

[wufwugy]

We are a bit off track here. You claimed the universe is amoral. I insist this is not true since the universe does not only consist of everything outside of ourselves, but includes us as well-- and we have morals, relative or not. And I think if we trace the root of this derailment back to a relevant source, we find an amoral universe vs a universe which has (likely relative) morality.

Does a rock have a moral compass? Does a black hole? A molecule of water? I feel safe saying, "no," but the fact that things within a set are without a quality, this doesn't mean the whole set is without that quality. Throwing your hands up and saying "Your god isn't real, and the universe doesn't care!" is both unproductive and intellectually lazy. And, for what it's worth, I don't mean that as an insult, but as a critique-- you've contributed a lot to this discussion and much more than most have the capacity for, including myself. If you have a frustration point with this discussion and that's the way out that lets you feel better, that's fine, but I'll still call you on it.

Thanks. Also it's a good thing to call me out. When I said that, I was saying that I didn't know where further to take it, but that doesn't mean there isn't somewhere further.

Probably the only good point from what I said is that the fundamental belief in god (specifically, a god that hates abortion) is a major creator of the kind of anti-abortion sentiments that cause more harm than good. So when it comes to the incorrigible, it may be a good idea to address that. Granted, it probably isn't a good idea, since the last thing people want to give up is their god

I guess my nutshell of what to do about the incorrigible bible-bangers is as follows:

1. Use science and logic to show them it isn't murder

2. Appeal to their sense of personal freedom by convincing them even if they are right, it is still wrong to tell other people what to do. They already mostly believe it is right to show people the way but wrong for the government to force them.

3. Appeal to their sense of religious sanctity by convincing them that their religion is theirs, not anybody else's. This is the root of the Protestant Reformation, but the Moral Majority has tried to forget it. The Protestant's relationship with God has always been a personal one, and judgment is for God to determine, not his followers

4. Appeal to their common sense by convincing them that it is wrong to not let women abort but then turning their backs on the children, who ultimately suffer greatly because they were brought into a world that essentially doesn't want them

[boost]

Thanks. Also it's a good thing to call me out. When I said that, I was saying that I didn't know where further to take it, but that doesn't mean there isn't somewhere further.

Probably the only good point from what I said is that the fundamental belief in god (specifically, a god that hates abortion) is a major creator of the kind of anti-abortion sentiments that cause more harm than good. So when it comes to the incorrigible, it may be a good idea to address that. Granted, it probably isn't a good idea, since the last thing people want to give up is their god

I guess my nutshell of what to do about the incorrigible bible-bangers is as follows:

1. Use science and logic to show them it isn't murder

2. Appeal to their sense of personal freedom by convincing them even if they are right, it is still wrong to tell other people what to do. They already mostly believe it is right to show people the way but wrong for the government to force them.

3. Appeal to their sense of religious sanctity by convincing them that their religion is theirs, not anybody else's. This is the root of the Protestant Reformation, but the Moral Majority has tried to forget it. The Protestant's relationship with God has always been a personal one, and judgment is for God to determine, not his followers

4. Appeal to their common sense by convincing them that it is wrong to not let women abort but then turning their backs on the children, who ultimately suffer greatly because they were brought into a world that essentially doesn't want them

Yeah, I agree with this post in its entirety.

[OngBonga]

Since when did science and logic ever matter to bible bashers?

[boost]

Since when did science and logic ever matter to bible bashers?

There is an inherent danger that scientific findings and critical thinking will contradict religious teachings, so religious authorities have a vested interest to instill skepticism and doubt of the scientific method and critical thinking. So, yeah, there tends to be a barrier built up to block out well reasoned ideas that conflict with their beliefs, but that barrier isn't impenetrable.

In short, what I said to wufwugy applies to your comment: don't encroach on the religious' attempt to monopolize intellectual lethargy.

[wufwugy]

I would argue that science and logic matter a lot to bible-bashers. The issue is that opponents simply do not address them and their framing

I feel like I have a unique perspective on this since I used to be a bible-basher and my entire family is bible-bashing. Their arguments are rational. In fact, they go out of their way to make sure their arguments are rational. If you can show them where their arguments are not rational, they try to find a rational way of returning

Look at Intelligent Design. It's an attempt by bible-bashers to be totally rational. They are trying to say "this therefore this therefore this" instead of "this therefore this therefore MAGIC therefore this". I think it appears that they're still assuming magic in the formula because they virtually never have people who understand what it takes to change their views ever really try. They can be convinced of rational flaws, and they usually don't forget it

Don't forget there's a ton of terrible logic on the "pro-science" side. It could be argued that environmentalists believe in more devastatingly bad things than fundamentalist christians. Xtians think they have morality and common sense on their side (they're mostly wrong), and environmentalists think they have science and logic and their side (they're also mostly wrong)

[surviva316]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legaliz...d_crime_effect

Donahue and Levitt used arrest rates instead of arrests per capita, lolwut?!?!

[surviva316]

Hey KingNat,

I thought this thread was about you being an abortion escort. Not arguments about morality. Sorry I misunderstood!

Yeah, I feel bad for derailing, but also don't want to end the discussion because it's interesting. Request to mods to split thread?

[surviva316]

I'm opposed to the conclusion because otherwise it means that quarks and gluons and gravity and hydrogen have moral purpose

Fundamental, universal morality is an incredible claim. Probably as incredible as the claim of the existence of god

As I said earlier, there are three branches of Philosophy: what is stuff and how does it work (Physics and Metaphysics), what can we know about stuff and how (Epistemology), and what is the value of stuff. The two most study aspects of the third branch are Aesthetics and Ethics (that is, the value of willful actions) because they're the ones with most practical implications. Why aesthetics is a worthwhile study is irrelevant to this discussion; why ethics is valuable is that we (presumably) have some intellectual control over our actions, so if we can teach the intellect how to optimize those actions, then our actions will improve.[1]

Of course quarks and gluons and gravity and hydrogen have varying values to the various things they come in interaction with; I absolutely reject that they're a-value, and evaluating them would (hypothetically, if anyone bothered to do it) fall under this third branch of Philosophy, and it'd be semantics to debate if it falls under "ethics." But whether the activity of gravity is good or bad gets into stoner territory: regardless of whether or not gravity is good, it exists and it's going to happen to you, so whether or not a hypothetical world without it is better is not nearly as useful as learning the mathematical laws that predict it.

If we could influence gravity--if, for example, we were constructing a new universe--the morality of physics[2] would be a crucial branch of discussion.

________________

An entirely other can of worms is whether determinism exists, in which case there is no "willful" or "influenceable" action. This is possible, but its possibility is nothing more than a probabilistic weight that is placed on moral discussion. I discussed this in great length with (I think) spoon a long time ago and can dig it up if it's a sticking point to you.

[1] That's more an example than an underlying reason. We can also influence other people's actions through societal structures, for example. The point is that willful action is influenceable, so learning about optimizing it is interesting, if not extremely practical.

[2] Not to be confused with the Metaphysics of Morals, which is already a crucial discussion to have :P

[wufwugy]

If we could influence gravity--if, for example, we were constructing a new universe--the morality of physics[2] would be a crucial branch of discussion.

Now we're getting somewhere

Would it be a crucial branch of discussion? How does somebody propose that the laws of thermodynamics are worth moral considerations?

[surviva316]

So we can say, no brain = no morals. A brain but no neocortex = no morals. A brain and neocortex = these have some semblance of morals and the morals will be more complex the more neocortex there is.

Replace "morals" with capacity for moral judgment (or, synonymously, a system for evaluating actions), and I agree. This is pretty much what we imply when we say something does or doesn't have "morals" (the noun), so that's fine.

I think it may be possible to expand the definition of morality to include more than this, but I'm not sure. It would probably just be a marginal expansion at most. Too much expansion and the word loses its meaning, similar to how agnostics or atheist-enthusiasts are sometimes unwilling to say "god does not exist" because they're expanding the definition of god to include something almost entirely meaningless yet still trying to call it god

In both cases, I seek a practical definition of the term.

**[SIDETRACK:] Not to get too sidetracked, but with the "god" term, I always set the terms as 1) something that I can know about and 2) something that is important to know about. Basically, it's cardinal for there to be importance in the knowledge of god, or else what the fuck is the difference between a theist and an atheist and a deist and a buddhist (whatever the fuck those guys are) anyway?

So I agree that it's obnoxious when the terms get expanded so much that the term becomes meaningless. A couple of mundane facts are used as premises to prove that some technical definition of "god" exists, and suddenly I'm supposed to get down on my hands and knees and give a shit? Oh, "god" is anything that provides order to our world, you say? So then the only thing that you prove when you prove "god" is that there is order in this world, which was (95% of the time) your premise in the first place? Cool beans. Oh, "god" is any "intelligent" "creator" you say? So atheists are "wrong" if our universe was created in some trial and error test by aliens working in a shampoo company's R&D company, and our universe is nothing more than the "error" in search for something that adds to a the Sleek and Shine series? According to any practical definition of "god" (and thus "atheist" and "theist"), no atheist should feel as though they flubbed it if they didn't pray to or model our ethical system after something that doesn't know about us / care what we believe / care what we do and offers no useful advice on any of those things.

Anything simpler than the above parameters in the beginning of this sidetrack, and we're talking about something that comes so short of any practical application of this knowledge of god, that it's irrelevant to me whether it exists or not. It may be of great physical or metaphysical importance, but it's like adding an element to the periodic table: to anyone outside of the field, we're only interested in its practical effects are. Until I'm told that it cures cancer or can hold conversations with me about why I'm here and what the meaning of all this is, this god element is water under the bridge (or whatever). [/Sidetrack]**

My point in saying that everything has ethical value is that we can evaluate all actions and their expected effects on its subjects, and it's apodeictically better to do things that have high value than it is to do things that have not-as-high value than it is to do things that have no value than it is to do things that have negative value. As such, we're better off learning how to optimize our actions (whether this means studying philosophy or, if you're a money-loving egoist, reading a book on how to swindle people or what have you). If it's not possible to influence the activities of an object or being (either through lack of Will in those objects or lack of communication between us or whatever), then it doesn't much matter how much we study up on how good or bad it is for those objects to do this or that.

This may or may not be OVERLY simplistic, but it's a fair summary of the practical limits that I'm discussing here. I don't think it's meaningful to say that getting an abortion is "amoral" just because there exists at least one part of the universal spacetime that remains indifferent to the action. GETTING AN ABORTION IS OF EXTREME VALUE (positive or negative) AND IT IS INSANELY IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THIS VALUE, as a pregnant individual or as a society or as a species. This is a pretty simple, practical definition of ethics. Making it more complicated than that--applying all these sociological, evolutionary, theological, objectivist, etc criteria--is obfuscating and decreasingly practical.

So I agree, over-expansion of a term can make it lose its meaning. In this case, it's the over-refinement of the term that makes it importless.

[d0zer]

EDIT: Posted too early; this post is under construction.

sweet aborted baby jesus

[surviva316]

Now we're getting somewhere

Would it be a crucial branch of discussion? How does somebody propose that the laws of thermodynamics are worth moral considerations?

You mean what if you and I had the power to make it so that--for example--entropy decreased in isolated systems? Of course enacting that would have moral considerations. I haven't the cuntiest idea what the implications of such a reversal would be, but surely the effect would hold a certain value to the sentient inhabitants of our universe (both living and not-yet extant), and it would be terribly important to evaluate this.

[surviva316]

sweet aborted baby jesus

:kissy face:

[wufwugy]

You mean what if you and I had the power to make it so that--for example--entropy decreased in isolated systems? Of course enacting that would have moral considerations. I haven't the cuntiest idea what the implications of such a reversal would be, but surely the effect would hold a certain value to the sentient inhabitants of our universe (both living and not-yet extant), and it would be terribly important to evaluate this.

It certainly would, but that doesn't make it non-amoral

From the perspective of humans, a machine that increases or decreases entropy has as many moral implications as anything else. But when you go beneath human perspective (or other consciously adequate beings), the universe couldn't give a flying fuck. What moral purpose for the universe is served by a decrease or increase in entropy? The moral purpose of this is relevant for humans, but that is irrelevant for the topic of morality beneath or beyond human experience

The sun was here long before us and will be here long after us. It could shoot flares that wipe us out tomorrow and that changes nothing for the sun, its sun-like plane of existence, or any anthropomorphized moral care it could have.

[surviva316]

It certainly would, but that doesn't make it non-amoral

Yes, it does. We're talking in circles now. We've already covered all this stuff about "beneath human perspective."

I've already conceded that it's possible that morality doesn't exist without sentient beings. Here's the trick, though: sentient beings do exist. Our actions have effects because they (at the very very very very very very least) affect the subjects of the action. I can't prove that our actions have values beyond their effect on other humans and "consciously adequate beings", but I can prove that they affect other humans and consciously adequate beings, and I can prove that those entities exist in this universe. Beyond that, you're making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Your argument either relies on sequestering us from the universe (which doesn't make sense), or it suffers from the all or nothing that I covered earlier: if we're not Gods-by-Extension enacting some universal and eternal law, then we might as well be rearranging the sands on Mars. All you are demonstrating is that there exist some parts of the universe's spacetime that go unaffected by our choices; all I mean to demonstrate is that our actions affect things in this universe (even if not necessarily everyfuckingthing).

[surviva316]

And I don't really know what your endgame is with all this anyway. You seem to be talking to boost about a practical rhetoric to take up with Christian pro-lifers, and I'm not terribly interested in that. If setting up some dummy argument about how morality doesn't really exist helps you blow a Christian's worldview, then sure, whatever, I don't care.

If we're actually trying to have a discussion about what choices people should make in their life, I am adamantly against classing most of our actions and inactions as amoral and align their moral compass to avoiding the few immoralities that are out there. The reason this is so important is that people routinely refer to abortion as though it doesn't matter whether you do or don't get one (lolwut?) or reason that it's amoral to leave a train on-course to kill 20 people and immoral to switch it to a track where it would only kill one person (HOLY SHIT WHAT?!?!) or rate a "flawless" but mediocre artist higher than a sporadically great one (okay, now I'm getting into aesthetics, but again I put less of a divide between these than some do) and so on.

This is why I argue so adamantly against moral systems that talk a lot about "amorality" and "moral responsibility" and "culpability" and the like. There are actions that can be reasonably expected to have positive effects, there are actions that can be reasonably expected to have negative effects, and there are (rare) actions where those effects coincidentally come to almost cancel each other out. You don't HAVE TO do anything, but obviously it's better to do better things.

[wufwugy]

This started because you said amorality doesn't exist. I questioned you on it. If you said amorality doesn't exist within how humans decide to interact with each other, I probably wouldn't have questioned.

My original point about amorality -- which is what prompted you to say it doesn't exist -- was that people who live in the mind-space of universal ideals and abstractions with little reason to consider their veracity other than mere belief are doing a disservice and I normally like to point out that if they were to exit that mind-space, the universe would say "fuck off with that noise". I was trying to point out that when somebody says "abortion is wrong because god says so", they're really just wringing their hands at an amoral existence of no such thing. I wouldn't consider this a problem -- I do similar dumb shit all the time -- except that it causes people problems. It could be said that I'm making a moral argument for why I'm pointing out this amorality

I never intended to suggest the kind of "amoral" thing with what you referenced with the train. I don't think people who claim amorality in that sort of situation understand the concept. The train example is an exercise in morality. Amorality is not relevant within morality contexts. Maybe people confuse an absence of morality existence with an absence of good moral behavior. That certainly sounds like how some people may call a decision in the train example amoral, when what they really mean is immoral and perhaps they simply don't want to admit it or don't understand the concepts that well in the first place

[kingnat]

How much does it pay?

Is this a second job?

Can you ask what type of birth control they tried?

It doesn't pay anything. The lead escort who is there all day gets some hourly rate. All other escorts are purely volunteer. It's just service to the community for me.

I don't ask anything of the women coming to the clinic. As I understand it there is a consultation that every woman is giving that attempts to educate them on effective birth control options but I don't do anything like that. That is all handled by paid experts that work in the clinic.

[kingnat]

Yeah I noticed you say old guys were the typical protester. I'm assuming you're USA right? Respect for not being armed. I agree it wouldn't be a great idea, but at the same time you have to balance the risk that one of those protesters has a gun, certainly if you're States. It's less of a concern here in the UK of course, but even then I think I'd feel vulnerable without some form of defence. But then again I'm not a big guy and do not have an intimidating presence.

Why do you do this? Serious question. I find it odd that you'd do a risky job for nothing. Is this because it will look good on your CV or resume or whatever you guys calls it? Or because you want to help protect vulnerable women from nasty pasties like these old men with nothing better to do?

Yes, I'm in the US and I do it purely for the last bit. I'm one of the most privileged person on the planet (the only thing I lack is significant discressionary funds) and I hate that people (e.g. gays, women in general but specifically those that seek an abortion, those experiencing homelessness, etc.) are made to feel less than by others (and society etc).

I can do something about it. I can stand up and say "I'll help." Sure, there is some risk. I also wear a rainbow colored pride bracelet, and have everyday for the past 3+ years (when I haven't lost the fucking thing) because I want people to be confused and I want them to ask questions not because I want praise for what I'm doing but because I want things to get better and I want more people to help and I want people to realize they can help by doing simple things.

And do I get some blowback? Absolutely. I get asked by protestors why I'm there, why I don't care about the babies, and all sorts of shit. It's very minor in comparison to what women feel but I hope it helps a little bit. Because of my pride bracelet some people think I'm gay! This, I'm embarrassed to say, actually used to bug me but I got over it. What the fuck do I care? Im very happy that I can actively and visibly stand in solidarity with those that are being mistreated and bullied.

I almost seek out to be the target of bullying because I have all the privilege a human could ever want to have, and because of my position in society I can take harassment.

[kingnat]

I should clarify that I don't think LGBTIQ folk or women aren't tough enough to put up with bullying. But they get harassed and attacked for who they are and I just don't think that anyone should be subject to that bullshit.

Unless you're a ginger. Sorry Chelle, but you people are an abomination and your seed should be wiped from the earth.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah I noticed you say old guys were the typical protester. I'm assuming you're USA right? Respect for not being armed. I agree it wouldn't be a great idea, but at the same time you have to balance the risk that one of those protesters has a gun, certainly if you're States. It's less of a concern here in the UK of course, but even then I think I'd feel vulnerable without some form of defence. But then again I'm not a big guy and do not have an intimidating presence.

Why do you do this? Serious question. I find it odd that you'd do a risky job for nothing. Is this because it will look good on your CV or resume or whatever you guys calls it? Or because you want to help protect vulnerable women from nasty pasties like these old men with nothing better to do?

@bold, I just now caught this. I think it's hilarious the perception that some people have of guns in the United States.