My migration from Wordpress to Substack was not as smooth as one could hope for.
Here are the non-migrated comments on this post:
Oresztesz says:
2013-04-10 at 5:38 am
It is way too late for me to think about taking a position, but I can always add to the confusion!
It has happened frequently enough to be noted during hypnotherapy that a patien find themselves with memories or even conversations bubbling up from the whomb (“mommy is sad/tired=I’m guilty”, “mom/dad/grandparents don’t want me”, “daddy is beating mommy” and “mommy wanta a boy/girl and I’m just the opposite of that”) usually without me directly suggesting it or on occasion even without the person consciously being aware of it.
Something else to think about…
Reply
Bill says:
2013-04-19 at 2:43 am
I would have to disagree with your charge that pro-lifers “will not take responsibility for that right [to life]” … every pro-life organization with which I have been involved explicitly supports adoption, and is concerned also for the health and welfare of the mother. Irrespective of that, the consistency of the holders of a position has no logical bearing on the truth or falsehood of the position. I am not certain, though, that it is possible to have a position that is not influenced somewhere by a worldview or other axiomatic belief. It is because I believe that the zygote is a unique human life that I support its right to live; it is because I believe it to be a person that I would insist that the available choices be restricted to those that do not kill or injure it. And it is because I believe that humans are created in the image of God that I believe them to be of infinite value, even when society does not deem them attractive or useful. I am not interested in maintaining a war of ideas; only in making sure that the weakest and most vulnerable of society are still protected.
Reply
Kevin Carroll says:
2013-05-02 at 4:25 pm
If we understand the golden rule (GR) as “treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation” it forbids the inconsistent combination–I do something to anotherI’m unwilling that this be done to me in the same situation. In other words, I condemn how I treat another, if I condemn the same act when I imagine it done to me in the same situation. It is this understanding that moves GR from being a vague platitude to a precise consistency test.
So, “switching places” is globally and beautifully simple. It promotes justice, consideration, cooperation, and unity. To be consistent we must be impartial (in the sense of making similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless about the individuals involved) and conscientious (in the sense of living in harmony with our moral beliefs). Although simple, it is a difficult argument to make especially in the more abstract (i.e. considering someone or something else we care about on the receiving end of an action). Thus, if we can agree on consistency conditions for “doing” something, then perhaps we can agree on consistency conditions for “wanting” something and “holding a moral belief”. GR then is a family of related ideas. GR is a point of unity in a diverse world.
(for more on an understanding of GR see Harry Gensler’s new book “Ethics and the Golden Rule”)
Reply
zorkthehun says:
2013-05-03 at 3:02 am
I see the golden rule somewhat differently and I consider relying on it potentially suicidal.
Did you read my post on it? “Islam and the Golden Rule”
Please do and tell me where am I wrong if you think I am.
Reply
Kevin Carroll says:
2013-05-03 at 4:15 am
If you rely on a fallacy interpretation of GR then, yes, it could be suicidal. Your post “Islam and the Golden Rule” reminds me of the “Soft GR Fallacy” which erroneously is interpreted that we should not act against what others want. Sometimes we have to forcibly defend ouselves against an attacker, or jail a dangerous criminal. So, GR interpreted correctly lets us act against what others want as long as we’re now willing that if we were in their situation then we be treated similarly. So, if you were about to kill someone, would you be willing that if you were that person about to be killed in their situation that you defend yourself? Yes, you would of course. And therefore, if you were killed in defense by the person you were going to kill then it meets the consistency test.
Applying GR wisely means we must memorize “Am I now willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?” And “situation” includes the experiences that make up the person, which you seem to acknowledge in your post on Abortion.
Applying GR wisely also means more than just sitting down in ignorance and asking how we want to be treated. To lead reliably to “right” action, GR must build on knowledge and imagination. Again, in your post on Abortion I imagined being you in your situation, which I suppose was your intent and well done.
Lastly, even if we are misinformed, GR doesn’t command specific acts. Instead, GR forbids inconsistent combinations such as: I do something to another – I’m unwilling this be done to me in the same situation.
I hope this helps but reading Harry Gensler’s book “Ethics and the Golden Rule, will, I think, will help you navigate the “slippery slopes” that you seem to enjoy traversing.
Reply
Dani says:
2013-10-19 at 2:47 am
No, this would not be an acceptable compromise and here is why. Not all women who don’t want a child are young, unmarried, irresponsible floozies.
I am a 38 year old legally married mother of two small kids. Both of my pregnancies were high risk.
Tubal Ligations are not 100% effective, nor are vasectomies or any birth control for that matter.
Should I happen to get pregnant again, in spite of taking every precaution, aside from abstinence which would be ludicrous to expect from a married couple, my husband and I are in no position to care for another child. Not financially, not emotionally, and not physically.
It is even more ludicrous to expect that I must carry that child, in front of the 2 children that I already have, and then just hand off their brother/or sister to be raised by someone else.
This doesn’t even begin to address the prospect of them meeting same said brother or sister at some future point in life, and without realizing they are related, possibly engaging in a sexual relationship themselves.
Furthermore-
There are several other mammals in the animal kingdom that can self-terminate, or even ‘put on hold’ a pregnancy, if their environment is hostile.
We may be the Apex predator of all of the animal species on Earth, but we are still animals of the mammal class and we have the same rights to our abilities as the animals do.
Abortion is a personal choice, and it should not be ‘illegal.’
When Libertarian Gary Johnson was asked- “Should abortion be outlawed,” he replied, “Let each state decide.”
The interview proceeded…
Q: You have unorthodox takes, for a member of the GOP, on abortion.
A: I support women’s rights to choose up until viability of the fetus. I’ve supported the notion of parental notification. I’ve supported counseling and I’ve supported the notion that public funds not be used for abortions. But I don’t want for a second to pretend that I have a better idea of how a woman should choose when it comes to this situation. Fundamentally this is a choice that a woman should have.
If it is ‘fundamentally a choice that a woman should have,’ then states government should have no more say than federal government should.
It simply should be ‘fundamentally a choice that a woman should have.’
This hypocrisy is what is wrong with the Liberal Democrats and the Tea Party Republicans, and every Libertarian candidate.
So what makes Libertarians any different from the rest of them that will just pander to their bases?
Reply
zorkthehun says:
2013-10-19 at 4:11 am
Did you actually read my posts? I mean both of them, my personal story as well. Can you have no sympathy for my position? Can you not imagine a genuinely ambivalent position?
Do you consider all opposition to your ideas hypocrisy? To repeat my last question:
Can you make your position to be non-ideological? It sure seems that you cannot.
The essence of my libertarian position is simply that the state has already too much to do with it. I do not think that it is right to force someone to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with. Tax dollars should not pay for abortion. Can we meet at least on that point?
My migration from Wordpress to Substack was not as smooth as one could hope for.
Here are the non-migrated comments on this post:
Oresztesz says:
2013-04-10 at 5:38 am
It is way too late for me to think about taking a position, but I can always add to the confusion!
It has happened frequently enough to be noted during hypnotherapy that a patien find themselves with memories or even conversations bubbling up from the whomb (“mommy is sad/tired=I’m guilty”, “mom/dad/grandparents don’t want me”, “daddy is beating mommy” and “mommy wanta a boy/girl and I’m just the opposite of that”) usually without me directly suggesting it or on occasion even without the person consciously being aware of it.
Something else to think about…
Reply
Bill says:
2013-04-19 at 2:43 am
I would have to disagree with your charge that pro-lifers “will not take responsibility for that right [to life]” … every pro-life organization with which I have been involved explicitly supports adoption, and is concerned also for the health and welfare of the mother. Irrespective of that, the consistency of the holders of a position has no logical bearing on the truth or falsehood of the position. I am not certain, though, that it is possible to have a position that is not influenced somewhere by a worldview or other axiomatic belief. It is because I believe that the zygote is a unique human life that I support its right to live; it is because I believe it to be a person that I would insist that the available choices be restricted to those that do not kill or injure it. And it is because I believe that humans are created in the image of God that I believe them to be of infinite value, even when society does not deem them attractive or useful. I am not interested in maintaining a war of ideas; only in making sure that the weakest and most vulnerable of society are still protected.
Reply
Kevin Carroll says:
2013-05-02 at 4:25 pm
If we understand the golden rule (GR) as “treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation” it forbids the inconsistent combination–I do something to anotherI’m unwilling that this be done to me in the same situation. In other words, I condemn how I treat another, if I condemn the same act when I imagine it done to me in the same situation. It is this understanding that moves GR from being a vague platitude to a precise consistency test.
So, “switching places” is globally and beautifully simple. It promotes justice, consideration, cooperation, and unity. To be consistent we must be impartial (in the sense of making similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless about the individuals involved) and conscientious (in the sense of living in harmony with our moral beliefs). Although simple, it is a difficult argument to make especially in the more abstract (i.e. considering someone or something else we care about on the receiving end of an action). Thus, if we can agree on consistency conditions for “doing” something, then perhaps we can agree on consistency conditions for “wanting” something and “holding a moral belief”. GR then is a family of related ideas. GR is a point of unity in a diverse world.
(for more on an understanding of GR see Harry Gensler’s new book “Ethics and the Golden Rule”)
Reply
zorkthehun says:
2013-05-03 at 3:02 am
I see the golden rule somewhat differently and I consider relying on it potentially suicidal.
Did you read my post on it? “Islam and the Golden Rule”
http://zorkthehun.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/the-wikipedia-a/
Please do and tell me where am I wrong if you think I am.
Reply
Kevin Carroll says:
2013-05-03 at 4:15 am
If you rely on a fallacy interpretation of GR then, yes, it could be suicidal. Your post “Islam and the Golden Rule” reminds me of the “Soft GR Fallacy” which erroneously is interpreted that we should not act against what others want. Sometimes we have to forcibly defend ouselves against an attacker, or jail a dangerous criminal. So, GR interpreted correctly lets us act against what others want as long as we’re now willing that if we were in their situation then we be treated similarly. So, if you were about to kill someone, would you be willing that if you were that person about to be killed in their situation that you defend yourself? Yes, you would of course. And therefore, if you were killed in defense by the person you were going to kill then it meets the consistency test.
Applying GR wisely means we must memorize “Am I now willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?” And “situation” includes the experiences that make up the person, which you seem to acknowledge in your post on Abortion.
Applying GR wisely also means more than just sitting down in ignorance and asking how we want to be treated. To lead reliably to “right” action, GR must build on knowledge and imagination. Again, in your post on Abortion I imagined being you in your situation, which I suppose was your intent and well done.
Lastly, even if we are misinformed, GR doesn’t command specific acts. Instead, GR forbids inconsistent combinations such as: I do something to another – I’m unwilling this be done to me in the same situation.
I hope this helps but reading Harry Gensler’s book “Ethics and the Golden Rule, will, I think, will help you navigate the “slippery slopes” that you seem to enjoy traversing.
Reply
Dani says:
2013-10-19 at 2:47 am
No, this would not be an acceptable compromise and here is why. Not all women who don’t want a child are young, unmarried, irresponsible floozies.
I am a 38 year old legally married mother of two small kids. Both of my pregnancies were high risk.
Tubal Ligations are not 100% effective, nor are vasectomies or any birth control for that matter.
Should I happen to get pregnant again, in spite of taking every precaution, aside from abstinence which would be ludicrous to expect from a married couple, my husband and I are in no position to care for another child. Not financially, not emotionally, and not physically.
It is even more ludicrous to expect that I must carry that child, in front of the 2 children that I already have, and then just hand off their brother/or sister to be raised by someone else.
This doesn’t even begin to address the prospect of them meeting same said brother or sister at some future point in life, and without realizing they are related, possibly engaging in a sexual relationship themselves.
Furthermore-
There are several other mammals in the animal kingdom that can self-terminate, or even ‘put on hold’ a pregnancy, if their environment is hostile.
We may be the Apex predator of all of the animal species on Earth, but we are still animals of the mammal class and we have the same rights to our abilities as the animals do.
Abortion is a personal choice, and it should not be ‘illegal.’
When Libertarian Gary Johnson was asked- “Should abortion be outlawed,” he replied, “Let each state decide.”
The interview proceeded…
Q: You have unorthodox takes, for a member of the GOP, on abortion.
A: I support women’s rights to choose up until viability of the fetus. I’ve supported the notion of parental notification. I’ve supported counseling and I’ve supported the notion that public funds not be used for abortions. But I don’t want for a second to pretend that I have a better idea of how a woman should choose when it comes to this situation. Fundamentally this is a choice that a woman should have.
If it is ‘fundamentally a choice that a woman should have,’ then states government should have no more say than federal government should.
It simply should be ‘fundamentally a choice that a woman should have.’
This hypocrisy is what is wrong with the Liberal Democrats and the Tea Party Republicans, and every Libertarian candidate.
So what makes Libertarians any different from the rest of them that will just pander to their bases?
Reply
zorkthehun says:
2013-10-19 at 4:11 am
Did you actually read my posts? I mean both of them, my personal story as well. Can you have no sympathy for my position? Can you not imagine a genuinely ambivalent position?
Do you consider all opposition to your ideas hypocrisy? To repeat my last question:
Can you make your position to be non-ideological? It sure seems that you cannot.
The essence of my libertarian position is simply that the state has already too much to do with it. I do not think that it is right to force someone to pay for something that they fundamentally disagree with. Tax dollars should not pay for abortion. Can we meet at least on that point?