Notice that if you ask "When does life begin?" you get a definition, not a fact. What does this mean for the debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, one side defining life to begin at birth, the other at conception? Doesn't it mean that it's a problem without a solution?
You got more than enough of an answer Unseen.
Notice that if you ask "When does life begin?" you get a definition, not a fact. What does this mean for the debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, one side defining life to begin at birth, the other at conception?
This discussion is the prime example that there can't be a meaningful debate, because both sides just assert their opinions as true - that proves it's a matter of opinion and there is no solution for that.
I wasn't looking for an answer, I was trying to make a point. The opinions you refer to are actually proposed definitions. Once people realize that they should realize that arguing about something outside the realm of facts, they should realize that the argument is totally pointless and not subject to any sort of resolution through argument.
Many (most?) Christians, when faced with irrefutable evidence or an iron-clad argument, will almost never admit they are wrong. Instead, like the Catholic Church, they back-pedal: modify their arguments to minimize the damage of evidence and logic. Muslims are often even more obstinate.
Such religions claim to have a superior and objective moral system because it is handed down by God via divinely inspired scripture. Without a supernatural entity to dictate morality, there is no human way to achieve any kind of objective morality. God is the only possible source of objective morality. But because we (atheists) believe God does not exist, we also believe morality can only be subjective.
I've seen members tout various ethical systems as objective moral standards -- Utilitarianism, survival-based cooperation, the avoidance of unnecessary pain or suffering, etc. But, of course, they are not objective moral systems at all. Who decides what serves the greater good? In what context are we to make survival-based decisions? Why do you claim something is unnecessary? Value judgements are subjective. Whether or not they are good at disguising it, anybody who claims otherwise is being a didactic pedagogue attempting to force their pedantic dogma down your throat.
Morality is subjective. Majority views form socio-cultural norms that vary from place to place and over time. Morality isn't exactly dynamic but it does evolve as the human condition evolves.
Oh . . . and about the so-called "superior and objective" morality of religion? Even if there is a God, EVERYBODY overrides his moral dictates (as contained in scripture). We reject slavery and the subjugation of women no matter what God tells us. WE decide what is morally worthy: we decide what is religious. So even if there is a God of Abraham, we don't need him for moral guidance. And if we don't need him for moral guidance . . . why do we need him at all?
It's easy to understand the desire for an objective moral system. It provides a simple answer to apply to problems. And it makes it easy to judge others with comfortable certainty. But it results in the tendency to relinquish critical thinking and to indulge in judgmentalism. It makes people simple-minded.
That's what religious thinking does and the biggest reason for that is the false belief in an objective morality.
I am SO SO staying away from this Tar Baby.
Come on, Rocky . . . everybody's taking their turn as Br'er Rabbit.
How do you wash this crap off?
@MikeyMike1 @Unseen. Nowhere is not a particularly satisfying explanation.
Satisfying you isn't an obligation I have. I'll simply repeat what I've said before, that there is no such thing as an objective ethic. It's all subjective. People simply do what is in their nature. They cannot do otherwise. How could they?