Your Responses
The soccer player has no right to use your body.
The person-plant has no right to use your house.
It's okay to destroy the person-plant if you don't want it using your house.
The attributes of personhood give life value and secure the right to life.
Abortion is normally morally justified.
Your responses during this activity indicate that you should think abortion is always morally justified and that you should not have any significant moral qualms about the practice. This is broadly in line with your stated position on abortion, which is that it is normally justified. Though there is some inconsistency between your responses, your position on abortion seems generally coherent and well thought out (which, of course, is not the same as saying it is right).
Moto70 wrote:I'm not being anything I am simply saying I don't understand why you need to determine whether somebody is or isn't in agreement with something.
Moto70 wrote:So I am marked on whether the author thinks my 'internal consistency' is in line with what he thinks it should be? I presume this is derived from his own views. People can be objective but surely not that objective as to completely ignore their own views? When people start making quizzes about seed-people I think they should probably just not bother and find something else to do. You seriously cannot say that people have contradicting 'internal consistency' if they agree to abortion but don't agree to being kidnapped from a nightclub and held in a room while medically connected to a footballer for 9 months...
Moto70 wrote:The Elmlea thing is a case in point, he thinks I am abhorrent for punching somebody but is willing to fire munitions that will kill people. This is something that I cannot understand at all. Perhaps if I understood philosophy then I would see why this scenario is possible.
If somebody asks me if I am pro-abortion I will answer that question, as far as I'm concerned making up completely fantastical scenarios doesn't mean shit. Likewise the only comparable concept I can see to a human abortion is a human abortion, not seed people or anything else.Elmlea wrote:It says you've "failed" if you say that you're pro-abortion but have previously said you disagree with other abstract situations that feature the same concept as abortion.
Moto70 wrote:If you could guarantee that you were only killing Taliban bomb-makers (and then only the ones that are actually any good and not blowing themselves up) and not taking out civilians or blue-on-blue then your argument stands weight.
Moto70 wrote:As I see it you have a pre-determined measure of what violence is or isn't applicable, and just because our views of it differ doesn't mean that you (or I) are in the right. For the record I am not having a dig at you, nor do I dislike you, nor am I saying you shouldn't be doing your job.
Moto70 wrote:I was 100% behind my mate who was shooting at children in Iraq after the Red Cap slaughter...
Before the Redcaps slaughter my mates' platoon had requested permission to fire at the children who were being used to relay information via mobile phones, he said they would encounter quite a few of them and they knew they were being used by the Taliban. They were refused permission. Because of this his platoon came under a lot of enemy fire and it was pissing them off. When the Redcaps slaughter went down my friend told me that they were the closest troop and requested that they be sent in to attempt a rescue, they were told no as it was too hostile and they were to return to base. They again expressed there fustration at their position being given away by people (who happened to be kids) standing plain view using mobile phones. They weren't given any official approval but were told that they could use their own discretion on how to handle the situation, he said it was a no brainer, he was being shot at and didn't like it so they started shooting at anybody seen 'reporting' their position. He said it worked, within days it wasn't so brazen and it improved his situation.dynamiteReady wrote:Moto70 wrote:I was 100% behind my mate who was shooting at children in Iraq after the Red Cap slaughter...
Moto70 wrote:Until we've experienced it we cannot say for sure what we would do but I've got a feeling that I would protect myself and my friends over anything else.
They'd certainly have a wider range of phones to choose from...dynamiteReady wrote:Perhaps those kids should seek asylum over here... Would that make things better for you and your mate, Moto?
dynamiteReady wrote:If the bilateral forces still have to kill children after finding Osama Bin Laden, then there's obviously a problem with the object of the conflict.
dynamiteReady wrote:But then how many lives might you save if the bilateral forces just withdrawed? 200+ Afghan citizens + UK/US soldiers each year, for every decommissioned field unit maybe?
dynamiteReady wrote:If the bilateral forces still have to kill children after finding Osama Bin Laden
Moto70 wrote:I sort of understand what your saying, I guess the need for this stems from people that actually have contradicting views (something which we see in this forum from time to time) and not those that have their views but realise that some scenarios may force them to go against their views. Have I learnt a very basic grasp of philosophy now? If I have I stand by my view that it isn't for me and people should actually think about what they are saying before proclaiming one thing one minute and then saying some else a minute later!
I don't understand why if somebody says they agree with abortion you need to come up with other scenarios to see if they do agree with abortion, they have already told you they did.
Facewon wrote:Basically, I can't go with "it's morally permisable for the Doc to cut up the backpacker to dole out his organs." yet I'll happily squash the fat fucker on the track with the loop. I can see they're written to be morally equivelent, but I think (I don't know) that what I struggle with is that the hospital example is a bit more real, and that the idea of being so purely consequentialist in that scenario really rubs me the wrong way. The problem with the trolley examples is that they're a bit more "action film" than the other examples, and I instinctively (and I don't think I'm alone) cut the decision maker in the scenario a heck of a lot more slack if I feel like the clock is ticking and it's a split second decision. I struggle to imagine that in the hospital scenario, and my mind wanders to, "shit man, take the guy aside and ask him if he wants to take one for the team!"
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!