A Plan For World Peace

[Ixtab]

A Plan For Peace
by Margaret Sanger
The Birth Control Review
April 1932, p. 106


First, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.

Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science: this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.

The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. To raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. To insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents by pensioning all persons with trnsmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense -- defending the unborn against their own disabilities....

With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace....

In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace.

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ms_apwp.html

[Sean]

I fail to see how sterilizing "idiots" (since, of course, the true idiots belong to the "productive" middle class who will be immune to such a program) will lead to world peace. How is it that such populations "prevent us" from focusing on these "more important" problems? Anyone who wants world peace is deluded.

[Ixtab]

I fail to see how sterilizing "idiots" [...] will lead to world peace.The writer did not suggest it would. She made a number of proposals which if effected would, in congeries, be conducive to world peace.

Anyone who wants world peace is deluded.Why?

[Basil Fawlty]

To hell with Sanger, she was an early enthusiast for abortion.

[Ixtab]

To hell with Sanger, she was an early enthusiast for abortion.I fully support abortion. Every act of abortion is voluntary eugenics.

[Basil Fawlty]

Every act of abortion is an act of wickedness.

[Ixtab]

-Every act of abortion is an act of wickedness.Evidence?

[Basil Fawlty]

-Evidence?It is the deliberate destruction of innocent human life. That is wicked by definition.

[Sean]

The writer did not suggest it would. She made a number of proposals which if effected would, in congeries, be conducive to world peace.

"With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace...."

Or maybe I'm wrong in saying that one of these leads to the other. It could be just like a list of things to be done.

But suppose that she doesn't believe that sterilizing certain segments of the population will lead to peace. What benefit is there in doing this? Why would someone's mere existence bother someone? It is only mediocre people who are only one step above the dregs who think that the dregs need to be sterilized--these aren't the exceptional people.

Why?

Because it will never happen. Humans are unpredictable: we cannot put our finger on how they are going to act in certain situations, so we cannot therefore device scenarios under which they will be prevented from taking violent actions--what are we going to do? Engineer people so that they no longer act violently? That would be the only option, since no matter how much enforced ideology training they get, certain urges will always exist underneath the surface, which need to get out. People need enemies, they need to satisfy their violent urges in order to thrive.

Even if this did work, why would one want to live in a society filled with eunuchs? A world with absolute peace would be so boring: there would be no heroism, or any motive to sacrifice or higher duty. These things make for tragedy; they make life what it is.

[Boleslaw]

It is the deliberate destruction of innocent human life. That is wicked by definition.
Not only innocent, but defenseless.

[Basil Fawlty]

Not only innocent, but defenseless.That as well.

[Boleslaw]

So yes killing innocent and defenseless people is the key to world peace huh? Sounds like a more bloodthirsty version of school-yard bullying.

[Basil Fawlty]

So yes killing innocent and defenseless people is the key to world peace huh? Sounds like a more bloodthirsty version of school-yard bullying.Its the peace of the NWO - tranquilised drones, controlled in every aspect of their existence by social engineering in the service of efficiency. Next thing it will be Solyent Green and the kind of horror depicted in The Island. Not a great film, but certainly portending to future trends.Yet another hell on earth being cooked up.

[Boleslaw]

Its the peace of the NWO - tranquilised drones, controlled in every aspect of their existence by social engineering in the service of efficiency.

"The Servile State" as one of my favorite polemicists termed it. ;)


Next thing it will be Solyent Green and the kind of horror depicted in The Island. Not a great film, but certainly portending to future trends.Yet another hell on earth being cooked up.

Never seen those films, Im only aware of the Simpsons parody of the Island. Is there really a creepy Koala bear with weird glasses in that film? :confused:

[Basil Fawlty]

"The Servile State" as one of my favorite polemicists termed it. ;)Who was that? Sounds like . . . Belloc?
Never seen those films, Im only aware of the Simpsons parody of the Island. Is there really a creepy Koala bear with weird glasses in that film? :confused:No, I don't think so. Its basically a very good idea ruined by a superficial treatment. Worth renting out on DVD though.

[tempus fugit]

Every act of abortion is voluntary eugenics.

Where is the "eugenic" in every act of abortion?

[Helios Panoptes]

Who was that? Sounds like . . . Belloc?
No, I don't think so. Its basically a very good idea ruined by a superficial treatment. Worth renting out on DVD though.

Who's in it or who directed it? The title is too common and I can't find any info because of this.

[Kodos]

To hell with Sanger, she was an early enthusiast for abortion.

Only for eugenic reasons.

[Basil Fawlty]

Who's in it or who directed it? The title is too common and I can't find any info because of this.Its this one http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/

Its not great - a good idea sacrificed to a lot of action - but it raises some interesting questions and pays homage to other dystopias like Logan's Run, The Matrix etc

[Basil Fawlty]

Only for eugenic reasons.You think that makes it right?

[Kodos]

So yes killing innocent and defenseless people is the key to world peace huh? Sounds like a more bloodthirsty version of school-yard bullying.

If it invokes Woodrow its automatically shit.

Wilson was a worse president then Jimmy Carter, LBJ, and the current asshole put together.

[Kodos]

You think that makes it right?

America doesn't need 30 million more Mexicans and Puerto Ricans then it has now.

There'd be something like that many... I don't like late term abortions. for the 1st 8 weeks the fetus isn't self aware in even the most basic sense though so I don't care about those.

[Basil Fawlty]

America doesn't need 30 million more Mexicans and Puerto Ricans then it has now.

There'd be something like that many... I don't like late term abortions. for the 1st 8 weeks the fetus isn't self aware in even the most basic sense though so I don't care about those.Its not about what you or I care about, its whether or not abortion is objectively right or wrong. Destruction of innocent human life is universally understood to be wrong. This is why abortion proponents have to coin all sorts of euphemisms and engage in sophistry to avoid stating the truth about their killing.

[Kodos]

Its not about what you or I care about, its whether or not abortion is objectively right or wrong.

I'm an ultra pragmatist.

[Basil Fawlty]

Its not about what you or I care about, its whether or not abortion is objectively right or wrong.

I'm an ultra pragmatist.It really doesn't matter what you are, because the question is an objective one. Its either right or wrong. If you prefer to evade the question, as you seem to want to do, that's fine, but it doesn't go make it go away and it doesn't resolve anything.

[Ixtab]

Or maybe I'm wrong in saying that one of these leads to the other. Yes.

But suppose that she doesn't believe that sterilizing certain segments of the population will lead to peace.I don't think she has suggested that any part of the plan, by itself, would lead to world peace if put into effect.

What benefit is there in doing this?The exact answer depends on which segment of the population you have in mind. The benefit of eliminating undesirable elements from the breeding population is a mitigation of whatever social ills are contingent on the presence of those individuals in our society.

Because it will never happen.This assumes the permanence of human nature in its current form. Whilst it may be true that humans do have an inborn warlike disposition, yet it is the purpose of eugenics to modify this supposed innate nature through artificial selection. Besides, it is only manifested under certain social conditions, and these social conditions can be changed.

Humans are unpredictable:And then you proceed to predict human behaviour.

A world with absolute peace would be so boring:So everyone not engaged in war is bored?

[Niko Bellic]

Its the peace of the NWO - tranquilised drones, controlled in every aspect of their existence by social engineering in the service of efficiency. Next thing it will be Solyent Green and the kind of horror depicted in The Island. Not a great film, but certainly portending to future trends.Yet another hell on earth being cooked up.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Basil Fawlty again.


I believe this is the first time I've ever seen that come up.



As for the main topic, the only way there will ever be world peace is if we have a total global war, with every nation expending its entire stock of WMD. Then the survivors fight it out with the remaining guns until the bullets run out, followed by a huge brawl with rocks and clubs until the last man standing commits suicide. No more people=world peace. Every other scheme will fail, unless we develop Borg technology.

[Ixtab]

No more people=world peace.Why do you believe that world peace cannot exist as long as humans exist? If warlike aggression is rooted in human nature, it must be inherited, and if it is inherited, it can be modified through selective breeding. War is part of human nature; therefore it can be abolished.

[Berianidze]

I fully support abortion. Every act of abortion is voluntary eugenics.
While I have no problem with abortion (I'm just against the voluntary aspect), what does the women who aborts for convenience have to do with a coherent eugenics policy? What if that child would've been a brilliant physicist or architect? Surely this random, arbitrary event can't be synonymous with an attempt to purge the failing genes from the human race?

[Niko Bellic]

Why do you believe that world peace cannot exist as long as humans exist? If warlike aggression is rooted in human nature, it must be inherited, and if it is inherited, it can be modified through selective breeding. War is part of human nature; therefore it can be abolished.

Why would you even want to do something like that? War is the expression of higher ideals. When a man fights for his nation or tribe, he acknowledges that there is something more important than the self, important enough to risk his own existance. Ironically, it is also an affirmation of the self, you can't arrive at that conclusion without personal soul searching. If war is eliminated, humanity will lose some its most noble ideals.

[Sean]

This assumes the permanence of human nature in its current form. Whilst it may be true that humans do have an inborn warlike disposition, yet it is the purpose of eugenics to modify this supposed innate nature through artificial selection.

Why is war a bad thing? Why should human nature be changed? Oppression and violence are natural parts of life. To say that they should be eradicated is to express a distaste towards life.

Besides, it is only manifested under certain social conditions, and these social conditions can be changed.

What do you plan on doing in such a society? Once you remove the ailment of death (I take it you would jump at the chance), people will not be any happier.

And then you proceed to predict human behaviour.

Equivocation. To say that something is a part of human nature is one thing, but to say what the conditions are that cause that facet of human nature is an entirely different thing.

So everyone not engaged in war is bored?

No, but the type of society that would never engage in war would be composed of boring people. If there were no war, it would entail that humans would have as a result of a long process (which, starting with Plato, is happening as we speak) finally become completely domesticated. If a society is booming in the joy of its strength (the only occasion when art can prevail), then there will also be a need for warfare.

Its not about what you or I care about, its whether or not abortion is objectively right or wrong. Destruction of innocent human life is universally understood to be wrong.

(1) There are societies in which destruction of innocent life is not understood to be wrong. (2) It would not matter any way if all societies happened to convene on this issue, since there are (most likely) no moral absolutes.

[Niko Bellic]

Finally found it. I first saw this on a plaque in my battalion commander's office. Did you know you can wrap the speedometer of a humvee all the way around, past the 60, through the blank spot, and up to 20? It probably would have gone faster if I hadn't been hauling a trailer full of ammo residue. The Army frowns on that.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

--John Stuart Mill

[Ixtab]

Why is war a bad thing?War is not a bad thing, but peace is a better thing.

Why should human nature be changed?
"The exact answer depends on which segment of the population you have in mind. The benefit of eliminating undesirable elements from the breeding population is a mitigation of whatever social ills are contingent on the presence of those individuals in our society."

Oppression and violence are natural parts of life. To say that they should be eradicated is to express a distaste towards life.Everything man is capable of doing is "a natural part of life".

No, but the type of society that would never engage in war would be composed of boring people.To whom? And in what ways, specifically, would we become "boring" as individuals, simply by living a state of peace?

If there were no war, it would entail that humans would have as a result of a long process (which, starting with Plato, is happening as we speak) finally become completely domesticated.Since domestication is simply training a creature to live in a human environment, I cannot think of a time in history when humans were not self-domesticated.

The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse.National independence, for instance, is worthy of war, but if no occasion existed to wage a war in its defence, it would not thereby cease to be.

[Ixtab]

its whether or not abortion is objectively right or wrong.How can abortion be ethically right or wrong in an objective sense?

[Sean]

War is not a bad thing, but peace is a better thing.

Why? Aren't good things capable of coming out of both? Great art often emerges from times of war. What type of subject would our artists have to portray with only a society of people who do nothing but sit around all day?

Everything man is capable of doing is "a natural part of life".

Supposing this is true, it is for precisely this reason that war and evil are good things. But, some things are more natural than others. For instance, it is more natural for me to study philosophy than physics--my nature is simply suited for the latter. Suppose that we have decided that physics is superior to philosophy. Are we to force me against my inclination to drop philosophy and spend all my time studying physics? Likewise, people may incline more towards some things than others--we can here say that they have an inclination against avoiding conflict.

But suppose that we can rid ourselves of this inclination through eugenics and genetic engineering. Why on earth would we want to do that? The reason is because some person somehow came up with the false notion that pain=bad/pleasure=good, and that it is hence logical to minimize pain and increase pleasure. But this opinion springs from the idle wankery of philosophical speculators, not from the joy of one's own experience.

To whom? And in what ways, specifically, would we become "boring" as individuals, simply by living a state of peace?

Why don't you tell me exactly what it is that people would be doing with their lives in this society. Societies achieve greatness through struggle. If it is not the physical environment, then they go off to fight and conquer weaker civilizations. It is only when the strength of a population is in decline that this desire wanes. Likewise with individuals--people need challenges and struggles if they are to achieve personal greatness. Individuals can find this in war--and if a society does not want war, it will indicate that people are content living peacefully, as with everything else. Such are not the type of people who will attempt to create great works of art or achieve new scientific advancements; they would be more akin to people living in a barbarian state of pre-civilization.

Since domestication is simply training a creature to live in a human environment, I cannot think of a time in history when humans were not self-domesticated.

"Both the taming of the beast man [der Bestie Mensch], and the breeding of a particular kind of man have been called 'improvement': such zoological terms are required to express the realities—realities, to be sure, of which the typical "improver," the priest, neither knows nor wants to know ... To call the taming of an animal its 'improvement' sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in menageries doubts that the beasts are 'improved' there. They are weakened, they are made less harmful, and through the depressive effect of fear, through pain, through wounds, and through hunger, they become sickly beasts."

From Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols--though he is here referring to the taming affect of morality, it should equally apply to the taming affect of your Frankenstain fantasies.

[Ixtab]

Great art often emerges from times of war.Just because 'great art' and 'times of war' are simultaneous (evidence?) does not mean the former is caused by the latter.

What type of subject would our artists have to portray with only a society of people who do nothing but sit around all day?So you are saying that all people who are not involved in war sit around all day and do nothing else.

Supposing this is true, it is for precisely this reason that war and evil are good things.Argumentum ad Naturam.

But suppose that we can rid ourselves of this inclination through eugenics and genetic engineering. Why on earth would we want to do that?I have already given you some reasons.

The reason is because some person somehow came up with the false notion that pain=bad/pleasure=good,That is not my reason.

Why don't you tell me exactly what it is that people would be doing with their lives in this society.I am not going to list all the innumerable things human beings do with their lives that do not involve war. Sorry.

Societies achieve greatness through struggle.Eugenics has the same effect, and is less destructive than war.

If it is not the physical environment, then they go off to fight and conquer weaker civilizations. I believe that all other civilisations should be eradicated to achieve world peace.

[Sean]

Just because 'great art' and 'times of war' are simultaneous (evidence?) does not mean the former is caused by the latter.

No, they do not always correlate (Sung China being one example--but they do not speak for other higher societies). I didn't say that the relation is causal (my reasoning for this connection is below), but there are ways in which it is expressed in art: tragedy would be non-existent without war (I'm listening to Wagner as we speak).

So you are saying that all people who are not involved in war sit around all day and do nothing else.

No, but the type of society that does not will be composed of individuals who do. :P It is so for reasons I have already stated: namely that the type of society that is not willing to engage in war is the type of society that is likely to be docile and also unlikely to produce great individuals. Great societies are such that they need to "get out into the wilderness" so to speak, and they do this in all realms, in both the sphere of art and in the sphere of war. Vigor must express itself in both of these spheres.

But, you may reply, can't we just build humans so that they only have this one sphere (art, or other peaceful ones) in which to express their vigor? My response is to say that if we cut out certain drives, we will cut out their vigor altogether; it is this very unpredictability which causes us to commit acts of violence, and which also causes us to create great works of art. The greater the vigor, the greater we are in all aspects.

Argumentum ad Naturam.

What I meant was that there would be no reason to eliminate such drives, not that they must be preserved.

I have already given you some reasons.

Which I haven't adequately responded to yet. I will do so now. My reasoning is essentially that if life is to be increased, then everything, including crime will be increased as well (my reasoning for this is stated above in this post: i.e., it will be increased if the vigor of a society is increased).

That is not my reason.

It may not be, but such reasons spring from the same root as the reasons that you do have. To say that some parts of human nature are good and that some are bad, and thus should be eliminated, is to engage in the same type of idle speculation.

I am not going to list all the innumerable things human beings do with their lives that do not involve war. Sorry.

I was only asking for a glimpse of what your ideal society would be like, which should not be too difficult to give.

Eugenics has the same effect, and is less destructive than war.

I am not entirely against eugenics--it has been practiced in many different ways throughout history. What I am against is any attempt at eugenics today. This is because of the current ideals of our time: efficiency and business; a eugenics program today will only make humans more docile and meek so that they can be the harmless little worker drones that our benevolent masters need (as Basil stated earlier). If we lived in a society that was not dominated by commerce, then I might be willing to support some types of positive eugenics.

I believe that all other civilisations should be eradicated to achieve world peace.

Why would you want to erase the differences between man and man? I think that it is great that each society is unique in its own way. Also, would you be open to World Government if it also maintained the existence of different ethnicities?

[Halo]

So yes killing innocent and defenseless people is the key to world peace huh? Sounds like a more bloodthirsty version of school-yard bullying.
So we should only kill idiots after they have consumed lots of human resources?

[Basil Fawlty]

(1) There are societies in which destruction of innocent life is not understood to be wrong.For example? (2) It would not matter any way if all societies happened to convene on this issue, since there are (most likely) no moral absolutes.One can just as easily say that most likely there are. After all, we always encounter moral precepts as absolutes. The question then becomes - are they justified?

[Basil Fawlty]

How can abortion be ethically right or wrong in an objective sense?For something to be morally right or wrong it must be objectively right or wrong otherwise it would not fall within the domain of morality/ethics. If there is no possibility of anything being objectively right or wrong then moral statements are not possible. Instead they would just be a set of entirely arbitrary statements with no possibility of truth or falsity. But moral and ethical discourse is replete with statements of the propositional form such as 'murder is an evil' or 'lying is an evil', i.e. statements that are either true or false (objective) therefore moral statements are of their nature objective.

[Hakluyt]

So we should only kill idiots after they have consumed lots of human resources?
+++++++

Absolutely. Who was it that said Catholics only believe in a right to life before birth, not after?

The fact of the matter is, in a lot of cases, there is almost equal likelihood between determining whether an unborn child will end up a criminal later in life, and whether a criminal up for parole will be a recidivist.

[Helios Panoptes]

For something to be morally right or wrong it must be objectively right or wrong otherwise it would not fall within the domain of morality/ethics. If there is no possibility of anything being objectively right or wrong then moral statements are not possible. Instead they would just be a set of entirely arbitrary statements with no possibility of truth or falsity. But moral and ethical discourse is replete with statements of the propositional form such as 'murder is an evil' or 'lying is an evil', i.e. statements that are either true or false (objective) therefore moral statements are of their nature objective.

One can be a cognitivist and a subjectivist. For example, such a person would believe that "murder is wrong" is a true proposition because it expresses the speaker's dislike of murder. That it is subjective doesn't entail that it cannot be true or false. If I say "I like tea," it can be true or false that I do, obviously.

[Der Sozialist]

Its not about what you or I care about, its whether or not abortion is objectively right or wrong. Destruction of innocent human life is universally understood to be wrong. This is why abortion proponents have to coin all sorts of euphemisms and engage in sophistry to avoid stating the truth about their killing.

Do you eat beef, basil?

EDIT: I am always puzzled by the term “human life.” To me, “human life” is the composition of cells. The cells are the only thing “alive” in the human form. And since people don’t cry for eternity when they scrape an elbow I fail to see what is sanctimonious about “human life.” If, Basil is referencing a “soul” then I don’t know if I could differentiate “humans” from computer programs. I have seen more complexity [in terms of problem solving] in certain computer programs then I see in most people.

[Sean]

For example?

In feudal Japan it was ok for Samarias to test out new swords on random passerbys. It was common in the Middle Ages for people to slaughter the innocent relatives of guilty people in blood feuds. Infanticide was perfectly permissible in the Roman Empire. In Sparta it was common to expose weaker children to the wilderness as eugenic measure. There were also eugenic laws mandating the elimination of "defective" children in early ancient Rome.

One can just as easily say that most likely there are. After all, we always encounter moral precepts as absolutes. The question then becomes - are they justified?

Well, God, or The Golden Mountain, can also most likely exist. (For the record, I won't say that people are unjustified in holding moral beliefs--for they could be non-cognitive in nature.)

[Basil Fawlty]

In feudal Japan it was ok for Samarias to test out new swords on random passerbys.I don't think so. I know they tested them on convicted criminals. It was common in the Middle Ages for people to slaughter the innocent relatives of guilty people in blood feuds. People still do that kind of thing but its neither lawful nor condoned.Infanticide was perfectly permissible in the Roman Empire. In Sparta it was common to expose weaker children to the wilderness as eugenic measure. Yes, but these things were not actually legal, they tended to be done in an atmosphere of shame and secrecy. Also, abortion is expressly forbidden in the Hippocratic Oath. There were also eugenic laws mandating the elimination of "defective" children in early ancient Rome.They didn't have the medical technology to alleviate the kinds of conditions which would have taken the child's life anyway. Fathers could also execute sons if they displeased them in the early Republic.
Well, God, or The Golden Mountain, can also most likely exist. (For the record, I won't say that people are unjustified in holding moral beliefs--for they could be non-cognitive in nature.)Pray tell, what is a "non-cognitive belief"?

[Basil Fawlty]

Do you eat beef, basil?The odd time, why?

EDIT: I am always puzzled by the term “human life.” To me, “human life” is the composition of cells. The cells are the only thing “alive” in the human form. And since people don’t cry for eternity when they scrape an elbow I fail to see what is sanctimonious about “human life.” If, Basil is referencing a “soul” then I don’t know if I could differentiate “humans” from computer programs. I have seen more complexity [in terms of problem solving] in certain computer programs then I see in most people.You are obviously a hard materialist, a position I do not share.

[Basil Fawlty]

One can be a cognitivist and a subjectivist. For example, such a person would believe that "murder is wrong" is a true proposition because it expresses the speaker's dislike of murder. That it is subjective doesn't entail that it cannot be true or false. If I say "I like tea," it can be true or false that I do, obviously.I don't think there are any solipsists, its just a device that analytic philosophers use to torment themselves with. That along with the "what would we say to a sceptic . . . " device.

There is nothing in the statement 'murder is wrong' that ties it to some kind of subjective dislike. A proposition is a statement that affirms or negates being of something (Aristotle). Such a statement says this is or is not the case. Nothing there about feelings or emotional states.

[Ixtab]

It was common in the Middle Ages for people to slaughter the innocent relatives of guilty people in blood feuds.They were not innocent, by the standards of the time.

[Basil Fawlty]

They were not innocent, by the standards of the time.You have quoted that statement as if I had said it. I did not, the other guy said it. They were innocent by the standards of the time because blood feuding was forbidden by law in most places, where there was law. Anyway, the moral authorities of the time roundly condemned such killing for the reasons I have given. In much the same way as even some countries have an abortion holocaust going on all perfectly legal, moral authorities of today still condemn it. The law can be wrong.

[Mackie]

there would be a world peace if each man had enough beer, pizza and good women.

[Der Sozialist]

The odd time, why?


…because a full grown bovine has more acumen than a several week old fetus.

[Basil Fawlty]

…because a full grown bovine has more acumen than a several week old fetus.Even if that were true, so what?

[Der Sozialist]

Even if that were true, so what?

So, a full grown cow is closer to us [in terms of a “soul”] than a several week old fetus. Again, how do you define human life?

[Basil Fawlty]

So, a full grown cow is closer to us [in terms of a “soul”] than a several week old fetus.No its not. The foetus is merely a stage of life, just as infancy, adolescence, or middle age are all stages of the human life span.

[Der Sozialist]

No its not. The foetus is merely a stage of life, just as infancy, adolescence, or middle age are all stages of the human life span.

A single cell can be a stage of life too. I am really not following. Just because a “fetus” has to potential to develop a complex cognitive ability doesn’t mean that it is alive.

I really cannot continue until you define “human life” for me since you rejected my definitions.

However, back to the cow example---> I posit that a human being would feel “sorrier” if they were forced to slit the throat of cow than simply kill a fetus which (for most of its development) resembles a jelly-bean. The fetus would hardly show any emotion while the cow will “mooo” and shake and run in circles (obviously confused, frightened, and in pain).

You will see more emotion on the cow's face than you will ever see in a several week old fetus (let’s say). Your disgust for abortion is purely theoretical.

[Basil Fawlty]

A single cell can be a stage of life too.A single cell is not the same thing as a fertilised ovum which marks the beginning of life. I am really not following. Just because a “fetus” has to potential to develop a complex cognitive ability doesn’t mean that it is alive. You mean its dead?
However, back to the cow example---> I posit that a human being would feel “sorrier” if they were forced to slit the throat of cow than simply kill a fetus which (for most of its development) resembles a jelly-bean.Such a person would be guilty of a.) sentimentality, and, b.) superficiality, as if the essence of something depends on how it looks. The fetus would hardly show any emotion while the cow will “mooo” and shake and run in circles (obviously confused, frightened, and in pain). Actually no. Ever read an account of an ancient ox sacrifice? It doesn't happen like that at all.
You will see more emotion on the cow's face than you will ever see in a several week old fetus (let’s say).I conclude from that that you have probably never been near a cow in your life.
Your disgust for abortion is purely theoretical.That's an absurd statement. We are talking about the rights and wrongs of something here and not aesthetics or the sentimentality of people who have never been in a farmyard.

[Der Sozialist]

A single cell is not the same thing as a fertilised ovum which marks the beginning of life.

Er….A Zygote is a single cell……That is until it divides.

You mean its dead?

I am talking about “human life” here.

Such a person would be guilty of a.) sentimentality, and, b.) superficiality, as if the essence of something depends on how it looks.

It is obvious that the cow is cognitively more aware of what is happening than a fetus the size of a gummy-bear.

I conclude from that that you have probably never been near a cow in your life.
Quote:

I went to a petting zoo when I was a child and did get to interact with cows. However, I never have watched one be slaughtered. Here is a video (http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=agri_short&Player=wm&speed=_med), we will allow people to come to their own conclusions on this issue.

That's an absurd statement.

So far you have failed to provide me with a definition of “human life.”

[Sean]

I forgot about the Aztecs! They condoned child sacrifice.

The fact is that violence was once far more widespread than it is today. When these rules prohibiting it break down, as in times of war or breakdown of political authority, the nature of an act's moral status ceases to exist. We are squeamish about it because society has caused us to be so. But once there is a chance for the beast to get out, it will get out. Morals are determined by socio-political conditions.

Pray tell, what is a "non-cognitive belief"?

Non-cognitivism is the view that moral statements are nothing more than utterances of emotion. For instance, to say that killing is wrong is nothing more than to express a distaste for killing. Such "beliefs" are not propositions, so they are neither true nor false, and they are neither justified nor unjustified.

[Sean]

For something to be morally right or wrong it must be objectively right or wrong otherwise it would not fall within the domain of morality/ethics.

There are many alternative views (relativism, subjectivism) which disagree with this. Why couldn't it be?

If there is no possibility of anything being objectively right or wrong then moral statements are not possible. Instead they would just be a set of entirely arbitrary statements with no possibility of truth or falsity. But moral and ethical discourse is replete with statements of the propositional form such as 'murder is an evil' or 'lying is an evil', i.e. statements that are either true or false (objective) therefore moral statements are of their nature objective.

Just because something has the form of a proposition in everyday language, it is not automatically the case that it has the form of a proposition in logic.

[Helios Panoptes]

I don't think there are any solipsists, its just a device that analytic philosophers use to torment themselves with. That along with the "what would we say to a sceptic . . . " device.

There is nothing in the statement 'murder is wrong' that ties it to some kind of subjective dislike. A proposition is a statement that affirms or negates being of something (Aristotle). Such a statement says this is or is not the case. Nothing there about feelings or emotional states.

People think they are saying something is or is not. That is what they think when they proclaim that their religion is good and another one is bad. However, I think you and I can agree that at least the overwhelming majority of the time, they are mistaken. One faith is not "true," it is nothing more than the one that the speaker identifies with. There is nothing there that is explicitly personal, but in actuality the statement is about the believer's emotional connections.

Non-cognitivism is the view that moral statements are nothing more than utterances of emotion. For instance, to say that killing is wrong is nothing more than to express a distaste for killing. Such "beliefs" are not propositions, so they are neither true nor false, and they are neither justified nor unjustified.

I think he was questioning the employment of "belief," which you have put in quotes now(rightly, I think). Non-cognitivists deny that moral statements express beliefs.

[Sean]

I think he was questioning the employment of "belief," which you have put in quotes now(rightly, I think). Non-cognitivists deny that moral statements express beliefs.

Yes, my apologies to Basil for assuming that he didn't know what non-cognitivism is. In the earlier post, I simply used the term "belief" in a loose sense.

[Ixtab]

You have quoted that statement as if I had said it. I did not, the other guy said it. They were innocent by the standards of the time because blood feuding was forbidden by law in most places, where there was law. Anyway, the moral authorities of the time roundly condemned such killing for the reasons I have given. In much the same way as even some countries have an abortion holocaust going on all perfectly legal, moral authorities of today still condemn it. The law can be wrong.Regarding blood feuding, relatives of criminals were not always innocent by the standards of the time, because the tie of blood was bound together with a much larger tie than it is today. Each kinsman was considered in some sense responsible for preventing his kinfolk from wrong-doing.