Happy now? Abortion argument taken to "logical" conclusion.

[BlackKnight86]

Off the top of my head I would say Darfur, the Congo and Somalia would be places one could expect to find lots of behavior that contradicts the notion that "all life is sacred".

In your big picture, yes. But I am reminded of the scene from the movie "Blackhawk Down", where the Somali militia leader tells Mike Durant that "in Somalia, killing is negotiating", as well as the scene early in the movie where Mr Attu tells the US CG that that's the way they do things in Somalia, "long before a bunch of Arkansas white boys came". In their big picture, they have to do that for the "greater good"; which, if you think about it, is pretty much the same standard justification for increased government power here in the US. So they are actually being "life-affirming" in the only manner in which they can...in their big picture....so the truth remains the same. And if you don't believe in universal truths, then who are you to say otherwise? After all, you don't live there; so it's not your "human construct" to which to object, is it?

I have to say we have a group of darned smart individuals here in this subforum. I learn something every time I tune in.

Yes, I love the mental exercise!

I really didn't think you had attained complete knowledge.

Ah, but that isn't what I asked. I asked you what I said that would make you think that I believe I have complete knowledge, which follows from your earlier question "When did you obtain complete knowledge?".....

...and yes....of course I picked up on the flippancy.

I had thought, from a comment you had made a few posts back, that you were almost inviting such speculation or I wouldn't have brought it up. FWIW, I don't think you are a bit afraid of FWN. *I do think you project a certainty about issues that, from merely reading your posts, might indicate a tendency to dislike uncertainty. As to choosing your own counsel, neither I nor, I would bet, FWN would have it any other way.

I love uncertainty. But I'm not going to pretend it exists where it doesn't.

Probably the Elvis in me...

LOL....is that the "single name recognition" syndrome? Elvis...Cher......Einstein.............Nietzsche?

Just agreeing with you as to those pesky pseudo-intellectuals. They are aggravating to us real intellectuals aren't they?

They are quite vexing, yes!

Well said.

Thanks!

[Preacher Man]

Trent don't do PHILOSOPHY
I took one philosophy class
Figured out I was closely associate with hedonism
Then I was outta there!!!

I had one person tell me "I don't know how you read all those economics books with the big words"
Well, that's how I feel about philosophy...hehehehe
Words like "absolute truth"
It's all very confusing to me

What's a good starter/overview book on philsophy for the layman?

My friend gave me this book===>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching
She told me "you will like it"
I guess I will start there on my path to philosophical enlightenment
Trent The Taoist??

Sorry for the derailment
Back to discussions of fetuses and the beginning of life...

Philosophy is not one thing but an aggregate with many disciplines within, but a good way to get an intro, so to speak, is to look at Worldviews. A Worldview is the end result of philosophy. All the little arguments and philosophical disciplines are like parts to be assembled into a whole; a Worldview. Depending on what parts you add, you get a different Worldview. So, studying worldviews is like a philosophical cheat sheet. The problem with books centering on worldviews is that they tend to be too technical or exhaustive. The best book for students and laymen I can recommend is The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. A few caveats. The book was written by a Christian, he clearly states his own point of view at the beginning of the book, and the book has a slight bias toward the Christian world view. That been said, it is the best basic introduction to Worldviews I can recommend for non-philosophy mayor readers. Try to get the 5th edition, if you can.

There are also the "Made Simple" and "For Dummies" series, but I don't know how good are their philosophy volumes.

[lepto]

In your big picture, yes. But I am reminded of the scene from the movie "Blackhawk Down", where the Somali militia leader tells Mike Durant that "in Somalia, killing is negotiating", as well as the scene early in the movie where Mr Attu tells the US CG that that's the way they do things in Somalia, "long before a bunch of Arkansas white boys came". In their big picture, they have to do that for the "greater good"; which, if you think about it, is pretty much the same standard justification for increased government power here in the US. So they are actually being "life-affirming" in the only manner in which they can...in their big picture....so the truth remains the same. And if you don't believe in universal truths, then who are you to say otherwise? After all, you don't live there; so it's not your "human construct" to which to object, is it?

And one can call black, white, all the live long day but that doesn't make it so. I think it would be closer to correct to say the notion that "all life is sacred" is an ideal that humans live up and down to on a regular basis. That it is a thing in itself existing separate and apart from humankind, IMHO, is a stretch. If that were the case one would think acting in opposition to such a thing would be a near impossibility requiring, as it does, an act of personal, physical violence--such as hacking someone to death with a machete in the Congo--yet it is easily and regularly abandoned. That would seem to indicate something more in the nature of a biological imperative rather than a universal truth; something that exists because of humankind.[/quote]

Yes, I love the mental exercise!

Amen, err, Right On!

Ah, but that isn't what I asked. I asked you what I said that would make you think that I believe I have complete knowledge, which follows from your earlier question "When did you obtain complete knowledge?".....

...and yes....of course I picked up on the flippancy.

You are just too durned slippery. I'm going to dodge this one, if I may, because I'm worn out and I don't think it adds anything.

I love uncertainty. But I'm not going to pretend it exists where it doesn't.

Neither would I but it does seem to crop up when one least expects it.

LOL....is that the "single name recognition" syndrome? Elvis...Cher......Einstein.............Nietzsche?

That sounds as good as anything I could come up with!

Thanks!

De nada, it was deserved.

[ttoney83]

Keep in mind that a secular foundation for human rights doesn't require a purely materialistic world view. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution prove this. It is difficult to assert these documents take a purely materialistic approach with lines like:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Secular is not the same a atheistic. A secular society can have members with several positions (Deists, Theists and Atheists). What changes is how they reach their conclusions. In the case of universal truth, it is possible to hold to the idea of universal truths without the need for God, but it is difficult to do so from a purely materialist perspective for the reasons I already mention. A physical argument is not the same as a materialistic argument. One denies the possibility of anything but the material, the other does not. This is an important distinction

You have done a very good job of presenting your argument, but your argument is not really one for universal truths (or universal physical principles, as you refer to them), but one for defining the nature of reality. In other words, reality is what it is regardless of what I think of it or where I find myself in the process of understanding that reality. If I understand your argument correctly, that is what makes "universal physical principles" possible, that which we can understand from reality is truth (real), regard of how well we understand it. It is a good starting point. Love and life certainty are realities, but how do you see these realities become or been characterized as universal principles? How would you go a bout characterizing liberty and justice as universal principles?

I think I'm not being clear. I agree that a secular foundation for human rights does not require a purely materialistic world view.

Perhaps it is better that I share how my world view has come to be what it is.

I have little to no formal education period. My basic education consists of High School primarily (Kicked out/GED) with 2 years of college, during which time I was mostly drunk or high. Everything else since becoming "sober" is the result of my own investigations. I try to find as much primary source material as I can, which in this day and age is infinitely easier than it was 15 years ago when I had my last drop of alcohol and last drug. (I want no congratulations for this, this is just part of how my world view came to be what it is.)

By trade I am a "Field Engineer." My job entails interpreting and coordinating all of the various drawings which are used to construct Office buildings, Power Plants, high rise Apartments etc. These would include Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, various shop drawings for Elevators, Window and Curtain Wall systems etc...

Part of my job is to find the flaws in the design and make sure that everything will fit where it is intended to fit and look like it is supposed to look. I have to determine what dimensions are true, and which are not true and provide horizontal and vertical controls to make sure the building will be built as true to the design intent as possible.

Hence, all of my investigations seek first to build a foundation.

I was raised Catholic. I believe there is a "Supreme Being" or "Intelligence" underpinning Reality. BUT, from my perspective, since not all People believe as I do, then I must seek to define my beliefs from a physical perspective, founded upon what we can know, or do currently know of the nature of Reality.

So, from a human perspective, what is known, what can be known about Reality and how can humans know these things? I'm deliberately leaving out "intuition" 'revelation" "faith," for now, as ways of knowing as I think that ultimately the nature of reality will reveal the means by which these things are also physically explainable.

So, if the Universe shows a tendency toward greater complexity, culminating in intelligent life and even life that is capable of reflecting upon its self then by definition this is a Universal Physical Principle if the definitions below are true.

1 a: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption.
b(1): a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles <a man of principle>
c : the laws or facts of nautre underlying the working of an artificial device

2 : a primary source : origin.

I make a distinction between Universal PHYSICAL Principle and Universal Principle.

In all construction, one must first dig down to bedrock or construct a foundation from other material suitable to support the structure to be built. In this context, the Universal PHYSICAL Principle is an idea of how we might support a Structure. Universal Principle is Bedrock. I'm digging for that, but in lieu of finding that bedrock, since it may be too deep to get to initially, with this first construction, I must determine what MIGHT support the structure on material which is less stable than bedrock.

Building a foundation upon material other than bedrock is the more common method, but it does not mean that there is not bedrock below the foundation somewhere. In fact, on my current project, we only ever found clay, and on that clay we poured a 4' thick concrete mat slab to support the 15 story structure to be built.

You have done a very good job of presenting your argument, but your argument is not really one for universal truths (or universal physical principles, as you refer to them), but one for defining the nature of reality. In other words, reality is what it is regardless of what I think of it or where I find myself in the process of understanding that reality. If I understand your argument correctly, that is what makes "universal physical principles" possible, that which we can understand from reality is truth (real), regard of how well we understand it. It is a good starting point. Love and life certainty are realities, but how do you see these realities become or been characterized as universal principles? How would you go a bout characterizing liberty and justice as universal principles?

I see Love, Life, Creativity and Reason/Order as Universal Principles which are manifested in Reality as growth and development (Non-Entropic Universe). Liberty and Justice I see as human constructs which flow from Universal Principle and universal physical principle in similar fashion to the human constructs we call "Rights." In my opinion, unless humanity can lock down a solid definition of the nature of reality (universal physical principle) then any attempt to define "Rights" is too easily dismissed as mere belief; Your "rights" and the right of an infant to Life are subject to my world view and that might not include the concept that you, or the infant, are equal to me and "endowed" with the same rights as am I. I will try to demonstrate this from a Paper I've been reading entitled "The Possibility of Secular Human Rights: Alan Gewirth and the Principle of Generic Consistency" (Ari Kohen, University of Nebraska-Lincoln) Found here: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/poliscifacpub/38/ Click the download button at the right and the PDF downloads free. I'm still wrestling with this one but figured I'd throw it out there for anyone who wished to read it.

[fishface5]

OK I’m back (briefly). I am going to try to avoid jargon if possible because sometimes we can get lost in disagreements over the meaning of the terms and that can distract from the ultimate issues. And frankly I don’t understand the way everyone is using all the terms that are being defined/distinguished.

With that said, there are a lot of responses to my posts saying “ethics involves balancing different principles.” I agree, and I was basically trying to demonstrate that in response to the OP. And because people may not agree on the comparative weight of the principles involved, or even on the identity of all the principles that should be considered, I was arguing that all ethical decisions therefore take place upon a “slippery slope” rather than on a plateau of fundamental certainty. Any time we are balancing multiple considerations, in the absence of an objective and undisputed rule about how to balance those considerations, different balances can lead to different outcomes – some of which may seem appalling! In any event, to come up with an ethical system we need to find both fundamental values AND rules for balancing those values.

As an initial matter, in talking about “universal” or “objective” truth (truth that is not dependent on a particular subjective perspective), one point that seems to be getting a little muddy in this discussion is the difference between seeking/asserting objective truths about the physical world, vs. ethical truths. Physical truths pertain to discerning the “rules” that underlie the behavior of matter and energy; this behavior is not chaotic but seems to adhere to rules that we don’t yet fully apprehend, but about which we are making progress. For instance, we can verify that planetary bodies move in ellipses, and from that can develop a mathematical model that represents what we call the force of gravity: on the macroscopic scale, material bodies attract each other according to a set of defined rules. Gravity was operating way before humans perceived it as such, and there is no reason to believe that it will not survive our extinction. I think we can call gravity an objective physical truth. Our knowledge may be increased to the point where gravity is understood as a part of a larger picture, in which case gravity may be subsumed in a larger theory. But in that case it will be supplemented, as opposed to being discredited – as was the case with, for instance, the Greek theory of the heavenly bodies moving in circles because “spheres are perfect shapes and the gods made the heavens perfect.”

In terms of seeking ethical truths, however, we are not trying to discern the existing rules for the behavior of material, we are trying to discern whether there are rules that should be followed by beings who are capable of making decisions. Observation of the operation of the physical universe, insofar as that operation it does not involve the making of choices, isn’t really helpful there. Gravity doesn’t tell us when to help or when to punish another being. Now Ttoney has proposed the possibility of deducing ethical rules from the operation of the material universe. In thinking about that, I see two main problems. First, I’m not convinced that the universe does evince a preference for greater complexity. Complexity does tend to arise, but as I noted above the “preference” for complexity ceases once a highly functional model is achieved – such as sharks or roaches. Bacteria are not especially complex, but as a life form they are ubiquitous. Second, “the law of nature” is for the most part “dog eat dog.” Going back to “life is sacred,” certainly that idea is NOT demonstrated in nature, where practically every form of life feeds on (and thus kills) other forms of life. The overarching principle for life, at least on this planet, seems to be “exploit any available resource niche to perpetuate the existence of life, and let the strongest prevail.” It is true that some species have symbiotic/cooperative relationships, but only if it is mutually advantageous.

I guess it could be argued that life struggles to perpetuate itself, and that therefore the continued existence of life in general (as opposed to a specific life) is “sacred.” Beyond that, it also appears that nature seems to operate to secure the perpetuation of species, rather than individuals – “find the niche, fill it, and multiply.” So I guess we could extrapolate a natural rule of ethics that said “do all that is possible to perpetuate your species, and try not to extinguish all other life forms so that life on your planet can continue just in case your species is wiped out by a meteor or other unpleasantness.” That seems like a pretty solid idea to be derived from the progression of life so far, one that alien life forms could also buy into. However, that rule seems even harder to apply in day-to-day human relations than Kant’s categorical imperative!

Kant’s imperative has some claim to ethical weight because it is logically derived – ethics is a question for reasoning creatures who are able to make decisions, the ability to reason is what sets those creatures in a separate category of being, therefore all reasoning creatures should be treated as “ends in themselves” and not merely as means for the gratification of other reasoning creatures. The “perpetuate/try not to extinguish” imperative has some claim to ethical weight because it reflects the operation of nature. Both imperatives are similar in that they are deduced from “universal” principles that any reasoning being can apprehend -- in Blacknight’s words, “part of the universe as it exists, not an arbitrary value set by human beings.” Both of them may be adopted or not by human beings, but they do not depend for their existence on a human perspective. In contrast utilitarianism -- i.e. do what is useful in a given circumstance, whether useful to the individual or to a specific social system as a whole – does not depend on a human perspective, but cannot lay claim to perpetuating any universal underlying ideal or goal.

This brings us to metaphysical ethics: moral standards that are neither created by nor deduced by human beings, but commands from a source outside of common and direct human experience. The mission here is to try to avoid being ad hoc in arriving at an ethical truth – to follow PreacherMan’s admontition about being aware of presuppositions. I was not raised with religion but I don’t rule out the possibility of metaphysical truths. However finding them . . . is really problematic. Metaphysical truths are premised on the idea that there is a sphere of reality which is hidden from casual view, and which has rules that effect rational actors both in the “mundane” sphere of reality and in the meta-sphere. I.e. good/bad acts on earth will have effects on earth but will also effect the actor in the meta-sphere, in terms of whether they go to heaven or hell or how they are reincarnated, etc. In thinking about it this way, it gives more weight to PreacherMan’s idea about looking at the beliefs of other cultures, because now we are looking for common metaphysical beliefs, as opposed to merely common ideas which often include hatred and prejudice but are seldom enshrined as a metaphysical construct.

Crap I gotta go . . . . more later (sigh) . . . you guys are making things interesting!

[jspaxton]

My coworker and I used to joke about our teenagers and wonder if "post birth abortion" would be legal. I never thought it would ever move beyond a joke. What is this country coming to?

[BlackKnight86]

And one can call black, white, all the live long day but that doesn't make it so.

You mean, like, calling a gestating human baby a "blob of tissue"?

I think it would be closer to correct to say the notion that "all life is sacred" is an ideal that humans live up and down to on a regular basis. That it is a thing in itself existing separate and apart from humankind, IMHO, is a stretch.

OK....so what would make it an "ideal" in that case?

If that were the case one would think acting in opposition to such a thing would be a near impossibility.....

[snip]

How so? Are you regarding "universal truths" as having some kind of effect on DNA? Is that how you're defining it?

[snip]

...requiring, as it does, an act of personal, physical violence--such as hacking someone to death with a machete in the Congo....

[snip]

Or, say, crushing a gestating human baby's head with a pair of forceps?

--yet it is easily and regularly abandoned.

Same question as before: So?

I think we need to discuss vocabulary.....how are you defining "universal truth"?

[bold mine]
That would seem to indicate something more in the nature of a biological imperative rather than a universal truth; something that exists because of humankind.

Same vocabulary question as above.....to which concept are you referring with the bolded phrase?

[jspaxton]

We can all try to be philosophical, religious, humanistic, practical about the abortion issue. However, the issue boils down to two concepts: 1. Consequence diversion. 2. Denial. By consequence diversion I mean the reason for abortion is to avoid the consequences of life such as having unprotected sex or unfortunately, rape. By denial I mean we as a society have tried every which way to deny that a "fetus" is actually a "baby". However, the anwer is clear. . . .In my line of work I have seen countless women cry in mourning of a miscarriage and lost baby. Not one of them ever mourned over their dead "fetus". We all know abortion kills babies.

[Preacher Man]

I think I'm not being clear. I agree that a secular foundation for human rights does not require a purely materialistic world view.

Perhaps it is better that I share how my world view has come to be what it is.

I have little to no formal education period. My basic education consists of High School primarily (Kicked out/GED) with 2 years of college, during which time I was mostly drunk or high. Everything else since becoming "sober" is the result of my own investigations. I try to find as much primary source material as I can, which in this day and age is infinitely easier than it was 15 years ago when I had my last drop of alcohol and last drug. (I want no congratulations for this, this is just part of how my world view came to be what it is.)

There is a difference between education and the acquiring of information. I've known too many individuals who have formal education but when you interact and converse with them, it seems they did little mote than collect a piece of paper that says "diploma" and "x degree" on it. True education requires more than just information. Information just tells you something about something else. Education teaches you how to learn and how to think. Diploma or not you have educated yourself more than some "informed" individuals I know. Kudos.

By trade I am a "Field Engineer." My job entails interpreting and coordinating all of the various drawings which are used to construct Office buildings, Power Plants, high rise Apartments etc. These would include Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, various shop drawings for Elevators, Window and Curtain Wall systems etc...

Part of my job is to find the flaws in the design and make sure that everything will fit where it is intended to fit and look like it is supposed to look. I have to determine what dimensions are true, and which are not true and provide horizontal and vertical controls to make sure the building will be built as true to the design intent as possible.

Hence, all of my investigations seek first to build a foundation.

I was raised Catholic. I believe there is a "Supreme Being" or "Intelligence" underpinning Reality. BUT, from my perspective, since not all People believe as I do, then I must seek to define my beliefs from a physical perspective, founded upon what we can know, or do currently know of the nature of Reality.

So, from a human perspective, what is known, what can be known about Reality and how can humans know these things? I'm deliberately leaving out "intuition" 'revelation" "faith," for now, as ways of knowing as I think that ultimately the nature of reality will reveal the means by which these things are also physically explainable.

So, if the Universe shows a tendency toward greater complexity, culminating in intelligent life and even life that is capable of reflecting upon its self then by definition this is a Universal Physical Principle if the definitions below are true.

I make a distinction between Universal PHYSICAL Principle and Universal Principle.

In all construction, one must first dig down to bedrock or construct a foundation from other material suitable to support the structure to be built. In this context, the Universal PHYSICAL Principle is an idea of how we might support a Structure. Universal Principle is Bedrock. I'm digging for that, but in lieu of finding that bedrock, since it may be too deep to get to initially, with this first construction, I must determine what MIGHT support the structure on material which is less stable than bedrock.

Building a foundation upon material other than bedrock is the more common method, but it does not mean that there is not bedrock below the foundation somewhere. In fact, on my current project, we only ever found clay, and on that clay we poured a 4' thick concrete mat slab to support the 15 story structure to be built.

The highlighted sentence is a very good foundation for your approach. I think you are onto something and the approach has potential. Still needs some development though, but like I said, IMHO you are onto something.

Not everyone will accept, neither your approach nor your foundation, but keep in mind that no matter what foundation you bring to the table, or how well it is defended, it will never be universally accepted. The very fact that we all as individuals come from different contexts, have different experiences, and have different presuppositions negates in theory the possibility of universal acceptance of ONE ideology or foundational belief. This is why, IMHO, finding particular Universal Truths or Principles repeatedly accepted throughout diverse cultural, religious, and historical contexts points to something more than just human perception.

I see Love, Life, Creativity and Reason/Order as Universal Principles which are manifested in Reality as growth and development (Non-Entropic Universe). Liberty and Justice I see as human constructs which flow from Universal Principle and universal physical principle in similar fashion to the human constructs we call "Rights."

The idea of a non-entropic universe as a foundation is a good one. But the reason it works is because it points to an order, structure, and direction to the universe and reality. Trying to state that an ordered material universe that is predictable because there are "laws" that govern material reality points to the possibility to "laws" that govern the realm of ethics and morality is an old argument. Like the expression goes, an oldy but goody. Like Kant and Locke before you, the acceptance of the possibility of a superior being, intellect, force, or first engine to reality indirectly influences how you see the universe as non-entropic and as seeking greater order and complexity. That is the way I see it too. That is not the way everyone sees it.

In my opinion, unless humanity can lock down a solid definition of the nature of reality (universal physical principle) then any attempt to define "Rights" is too easily dismissed as mere belief; Your "rights" and the right of an infant to Life are subject to my world view and that might not include the concept that you, or the infant, are equal to me and "endowed" with the same rights as am I. I will try to demonstrate this from a Paper I've been reading entitled "The Possibility of Secular Human Rights: Alan Gewirth and the Principle of Generic Consistency" (Ari Kohen, University of Nebraska-Lincoln) Found here: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/poliscifacpub/38/ Click the download button at the right and the PDF downloads free. I'm still wrestling with this one but figured I'd throw it out there for anyone who wished to read it.

Personally, I find it difficult to develop a secular foundation for Human Rights without recognizing a universal human condition flowing from a non-human Moral Agent. The most basic foundation for Human Rights, Human Dignity, describes a feature of the human condition that is not related to human behavior or genetics, but origin. It is therefore indirectly (or directly, depending of one's beliefs) related to the concept of sacredness.

I find Gewirth's theory interesting, but I agree with the author of the article in that the Principle of Genetic Consistency looks good on theory but fails to provide a universal foundation to Human Rights. My first though where reading the article was that Gewirth is too dependent on Non-Contradiction, and ethically and intellectually speaking, humans are experts at self-contradiction. It is actually part of the human condition to condemn behavior in others that we accept or justify in ourselves. As I read on I found out that is exactly the conclusion of the author. Gewirth did well in describing freedom of choice and obligation as ethical principles related to human rights, but assumes that humans are "genetically predisposed" to avoid self-contradiction, and this is where he fails. He makes a presupposition that is no different from presupposing human dignity or the sanctity of human life, except the latter concepts are more "universally" accepted a priori (independent of experience or without the need for evidence) than the principle of non self-contradiction.

But then, all the preceding is just my opinion.

[Preacher Man]

We can all try to be philosophical, religious, humanistic, practical about the abortion issue. However, the issue boils down to two concepts: 1. Consequence diversion. 2. Denial. By consequence diversion I mean the reason for abortion is to avoid the consequences of life such as having unprotected sex or unfortunately, rape. By denial I mean we as a society have tried every which way to deny that a "fetus" is actually a "baby". However, the anwer is clear. . . .In my line of work I have seen countless women cry in mourning of a miscarriage and lost baby. Not one of them ever mourned over their dead "fetus". We all know abortion kills babies.

I agree with your conclusions, but if abortion is nothing more than avoiding the consequences of life, aren't that also what a by-pass surgery or a Gastric Lap-Band are? My point is that the second factor, "Denial," is the most crucial of the two.

[timcsaw]

Like any theory, "Universal truths" are only those that we haven't been able to disprove (yet). I'd suggest that the following are universal truths; Time only moves in one direction (forward), and Definitives only exist in the past. However.... they are only universal truths if no on is even considering their alternatives (time can go backward). Just the thought that this could be possible weakens the "universality" of those "truths". (it's at this point where philosophy and science (physics) rub shoulders).

[Skimo]

Gentlemen, I have been mentally surpassed, I'm going to take a sabbatical and come back after I've pounded Layne's Law and Godwin's law into my head. After doing those things, I will hone my ability to observe and repeat my mantra that paradigm shifts can only be achieved by epiphany, generally as the result of a catalyst.

[ttoney83]

The highlighted sentence is a very good foundation for your approach. I think you are onto something and the approach has potential. Still needs some development though, but like I said, IMHO you are onto something.

I've presented it here, to try to get some input and see how the idea is received, in an effort to refine it. I always try to run my ideas past certain people in my life and now, this one is going more public.

Not everyone will accept, neither your approach nor your foundation, but keep in mind that no matter what foundation you bring to the table, or how well it is defended, it will never be universally accepted. The very fact that we all as individuals come from different contexts, have different experiences, and have different presuppositions negates in theory the possibility of universal acceptance of ONE ideology or foundational belief.

I agree that there are some who will reject even reality, but IMHO, If I am indeed on to something with my foundation, then most will accept the reality of it, IF what I have described is indeed the nature of reality. I guess I'm not so concerned about swaying everyone, just most. Ultimately, what I say makes no difference as I have no "credentials' which, IMNSHO have always been over rated. After I refine and develop this, I will pass this along to someone who has some credentials to see what they think. And if they like it, it is for them to use and spread.

I disagree that the multitude of experiences and backgrounds necessarily negates the possibility of the acceptance of one ideology or foundational belief.

This is why, IMHO, finding particular Universal Truths or Principles repeatedly accepted throughout diverse cultural, religious, and historical contexts points to something more than just human perception.

I agree, and the object of my exercise is to build a foundation upon which humanity can examine the nature of that “something else” AND to build a more solid structure of human rights and ethics.
I will try to post my more refined/developed foundation soon. I’m still working on it but I think I’m close to a rough draft.

The idea of a non-entropic universe as a foundation is a good one. But the reason it works is because it points to an order, structure, and direction to the universe and reality. Trying to state that an ordered material universe that is predictable because there are "laws" that govern material reality points to the possibility to "laws" that govern the realm of ethics and morality is an old argument. Like the expression goes, an oldy but goody. Like Kant and Locke before you, the acceptance of the possibility of a superior being, intellect, force, or first engine to reality indirectly influences how you see the universe as non-entropic and as seeking greater order and complexity. That is the way I see it too. That is not the way everyone sees it.

IMHO, I think I am being as perfectly objective as I can be in examining the evidence available to me regarding the nature of the Universe; I am led TO the conclusion that there COULD be a "superior being/ intelligence" which is the foundational Principle of the Universe, as opposed to my belief leading me to a conclusion of a non-entropic Universe, non entropy being characterized by continuing development of greater complexity with no sign of "slowing down."

Part of my evidence base is a Cousin who is a PhD. Astrophysicist. I run my ideas past him all the time and pick his brain for information.
The Universe, IN REALity, shows signs of being non-entropic, and this is confirmed by my Cousin who recently told me that recent studies conclude that there is enough latent energy in the vacuum of Space to keep the Universe expanding indefinitely. That assumes expansion of course; there is the possibility of the red shift being explainable as changes in wave length being caused by influence by “dark matter” or other sources of gravitational influence.

Personally, I find it difficult to develop a secular foundation for Human Rights without recognizing a universal human condition flowing from a non-human Moral Agent. The most basic foundation for Human Rights, Human Dignity, describes a feature of the human condition that is not related to human behavior or genetics, but origin. It is therefore indirectly (or directly, depending of one's beliefs) related to the concept of sacredness.

I find Gewirth's theory interesting, but I agree with the author of the article in that the Principle of Genetic Consistency looks good on theory but fails to provide a universal foundation to Human Rights. My first though where reading the article was that Gewirth is too dependent on Non-Contradiction, and ethically and intellectually speaking, humans are experts at self-contradiction. It is actually part of the human condition to condemn behavior in others that we accept or justify in ourselves. As I read on I found out that is exactly the conclusion of the author. Gewirth did well in describing freedom of choice and obligation as ethical principles related to human rights, but assumes that humans are "genetically predisposed" to avoid self-contradiction, and this is where he fails. He makes a presupposition that is no different from presupposing human dignity or the sanctity of human life, except the latter concepts are more "universally" accepted a priori (independent of experience or without the need for evidence) than the principle of non self-contradiction.

But then, all the preceding is just my opinion.

My interest in forming a secular foundation for human rights stems from the reading of Ari Kohen's critique of Gewirth's Principle of Genetic Consistency. I recognized in Gewirth's ideas, the age old problem of all philosophers who've gone before and that is, NONE of these who have gone before have had access to all the information regarding reality that we have available to us today, with the exception of Gewirth perhaps.

It occurred to me that without a solid PHYSical foundation for human rights, we would forever be locked in an I say, you say debate regarding relative cultural and individual values of life in general and human life in particular. I think it is time Mankind moves beyond the limited understanding of the philosophers of the past, with the knowledge we’ve gained since, and build a foundation from which we can both examine the nature and origin of Universal Principle and build a structure of morality and ethics which is consistent with, and supported by our experience of reality.

To close this response, I want to write down my hierarchy of principles from bottom (foundation) to top.

Universal Principle (Bedrock. Ideal for building a structure upon, but not necessary to construct a solid structure)
Universal Physical Principle (Foundation.)
Rights (Superstructure)
Ethics/Morality(Superstructure/Penthouse)

[lepto]

Sorry for the late reply. This has been a long week here in Arkansas.

You mean, like, calling a gestating human baby a "blob of tissue"?

No, a gestating human baby is, by (nontechnical) definition, a blob of cells. The Somali argument that says, in essence, "we kill people as a way of showing our regard for the sanctity of life" is simple obfuscation--psychopath style.

OK....so what would make it an "ideal" in that case?

"Ideal" can be defined as, "as good as you can imagine, and probably too good to be real." (onelook.com) In that respect it (the sanctity of life as universal truth) would be an imagined good that we wish was real but obviously, as evidenced by reality, is too good to actually be real.

How so? Are you regarding "universal truths" as having some kind of effect on DNA? Is that how you're defining it?

I was thinking out loud as much as anything. It struck me that one would think a "universal truth", if it were such, would have a power that a mere ideal, for lack of a better term, simply could not muster. The fact that this truth is abandoned at the drop of a hat seems to indicate humans actually have little regard for this truth and that it exercises, at the margins and where it is most important, neither power nor authority. If all life is truly sacred how could Hitler's Einsatzgruppen and their Jewish victims have ever reached an accord wherein the Jews lined up over pits and the soldiers shot them in the back of the head? The occurrence of such atrocities over and over and over again in our collective past right up to the present seems to indicate the lack of a universal truth rather than its existence. If it doesn't indicate the lack of a universal truth it appears to indicate a completely powerless universal truth which could easily be mistaken for "no truth at all".

Or, say, crushing a gestating human baby's head with a pair of forceps?

Don't you mean, crushing a blob of cells with a pair of forceps? Assuming the child has yet to develop a brain or to become self-conscious and is, in fact, a blob of cells why does it matter that that blob of cells is removed from the mother's body? How does that blob of cells differ from another blob of human cells other than in some potentiality that has not yet been attained; a potentiality that may well exist for other human cells also? What is it about that blob of cells that is so important that many are willing to force the mother to carry it to term even if it means endangering the mother's health and future welfare?

Same question as before: So?

I suppose that is the only viable response when presented with a reality that doesn't fit an ideology.

I think we need to discuss vocabulary.....how are you defining "universal truth"?

I may have already done this in this thread but I'll take another stab. If I veer from an earlier definition it is inadvertent, to the extent it might mislead, but likely because I've changed my mind. That said, I see a universal truth as a metaphysical entity existing separate and apart from humankind. It existed before humans were and will exist after humans have ceased to be. It is not a mental construct nor is it the consequence of a biological imperative such as the drive to survive and procreate. In that sense it has an, almost, physical reality.

Same vocabulary question as above.....to which concept are you referring with the bolded phrase?

I would see it as the opposite of a universal truth. It is not a metaphysical entity. It is, in fact, a human construct engendered by the biological imperatives of survival and procreation. It may have evolved over time to become something other than a simple reflex of biology (perhaps an "ideal") but, at heart, it is human. As such, it neither predates humans nor will it exist after humans have gone. To that extent it has no reality other than as a mental construct.

Perhaps you can provide me with your definitions so that we can compare notes?

I have to tip my hat to you as well as Preacher Man, ttoney, timcsaw, fishface, skimo and all the other posters for such a rousing conversation. I only wish I had half as much knowledge as you guys. If I did I might obtain complete knowledge!

[timcsaw]

I have to tip my hat to you as well as Preacher Man, ttoney, timcsaw, fishface, skimo and all the other posters for such a rousing conversation. I only wish I had half as much knowledge as you guys. If I did I might obtain complete knowledge!

Challenging one's own positions by the willing, open minded consideration of the opinions and new information offered by others having different views, is always a worthwhile endeavor... this discussion has been excellent!

[ttoney83]

No, a gestating human baby is, by (nontechnical) definition, a blob of cells. The Somali argument that says, in essence, "we kill people as a way of showing our regard for the sanctity of life" is simple obfuscation--psychopath style.

A gestating anything is whatever that being is. It is Life, first and formost, therefore it is Life WITH POTENTIAL as opposed to potential Life.

The Somali argument shows an understanding of the sanctity of THEIR lives vs. the lives of other groups/sects. It is a narrow perspective which does not see the bigger picture. How each Warlord values "Life" is irrelevant to the reality of Life being "sacred" or "special" in the sense that Life appears to be the object of Universal action or even Universal "intention."

"Ideal" can be defined as, "as good as you can imagine, and probably too good to be real." (onelook.com) In that respect it (the sanctity of life as universal truth) would be an imagined good that we wish was real but obviously, as evidenced by reality, is too good to actually be real.

I'm not sure why, but I sense some blocking that you may not even be aware of. There is a world of difference between what is real and what is imagined. What is REAL from the actual observed data is that Life appears to be the end result, object, intention, of Universal physical action. From that perspective, Life is "special," "sacred," or at the very least worthy of special consideration by sentient, reflective, ostensibly rational beings such as ourselves.

I was thinking out loud as much as anything. It struck me that one would think a "universal truth", if it were such, would have a power that a mere ideal, for lack of a better term, simply could not muster. The fact that this truth is abandoned at the drop of a hat seems to indicate humans actually have little regard for this truth and that it exercises, at the margins and where it is most important, neither power nor authority. If all life is truly sacred how could Hitler's Einsatzgruppen and their Jewish victims have ever reached an accord wherein the Jews lined up over pits and the soldiers shot them in the back of the head? The occurrence of such atrocities over and over and over again in our collective past right up to the present seems to indicate the lack of a universal truth rather than its existence. If it doesn't indicate the lack of a universal truth it appears to indicate a completely powerless universal truth which could easily be mistaken for "no truth at all".

Speaking to the bolded sentence above first, that is the free will of the individuals and groups involved. Just as in the Somali example cited by BlackKnight above, that the individuals involved do not identify the sanctity of Life in others is irrelevant to the Truth.

It is almost as if you believe that a Universal Truth MUST be obeyed and that the beings inhabiting the Universe have no choice in the matter. Now, in the LONG run, that may be true that disobeying universal physical principles will result in "punishment" up to and including our potentially immortal species going extinct. I have no doubt that if we can not get our act together with regard to developing a proper moral foundation based upon Universal Principle we may well go extinct by our own hand because we can not recognize the sanctity of Life.

Don't you mean, crushing a blob of cells with a pair of forceps? Assuming the child has yet to develop a brain or to become self-conscious and is, in fact, a blob of cells why does it matter that that blob of cells is removed from the mother's body? How does that blob of cells differ from another blob of human cells other than in some potentiality that has not yet been attained; a potentiality that may well exist for other human cells also? What is it about that blob of cells that is so important that many are willing to force the mother to carry it to term even if it means endangering the mother's health and future welfare?

First, again, at the very LEAST it is a collection of LIVING cells. From the perspective of the Universe, the Universe has invested something like quadrillions of terawatt hours of energy (or more) and untold amounts of matter into the creation of Life in general and Human Life in particular. We are an EXTREMELY expensive investment from that perspective, so who are we to destroy it so carelessly and thoughtlessly? We have greater consideration for our CARS than we do Human Life in some cases.

I may have already done this in this thread but I'll take another stab. If I veer from an earlier definition it is inadvertent, to the extent it might mislead, but likely because I've changed my mind. That said, I see a universal truth as a metaphysical entity existing separate and apart from humankind. It existed before humans were and will exist after humans have ceased to be. It is not a mental construct nor is it the consequence of a biological imperative such as the drive to survive and procreate. In that sense it has an, almost, physical reality.

I differentiate between Universal Principle and Universal physical principle.
Universal Principle for me is the MORE metaphysical.
Universal physical principle is the PHYSical reality we experience.
Neither of these two classes of "Truth" for me are mental constructs. We might create definitions to help us understand them, but they are not dependent upon our definitions to exist and act.

I would see it as the opposite of a universal truth. It is not a metaphysical entity. It is, in fact, a human construct engendered by the biological imperatives of survival and procreation. It may have evolved over time to become something other than a simple reflex of biology (perhaps an "ideal") but, at heart, it is human. As such, it neither predates humans nor will it exist after humans have gone. To that extent it has no reality other than as a mental construct.

It is readily apparent that Life is the culmination of Universal action. It would seem that what you identify as a mere biological imperative is in fact a Universal physical principle which predated humanity and will exist even after we are gone.

I have to tip my hat to you as well as Preacher Man, ttoney, timcsaw, fishface, skimo and all the other posters for such a rousing conversation. I only wish I had half as much knowledge as you guys. If I did I might obtain complete knowledge!

This has been a good one!

[BlackKnight86]

No, a gestating human baby is, by (nontechnical) definition, a blob of cells. The Somali argument that says, in essence, "we kill people as a way of showing our regard for the sanctity of life" is simple obfuscation--psychopath style.

Please tell me that you are not seriously trying to posit that non-distinction. Tissue is nothing more than an organization of cells. So a "blob of cells" is a "blob of tissue". I hate to break it to you, but you are a "blob of tissue", if we use your "(nontechnical) definition"....as is everyone else.

"Ideal" can be defined as, "as good as you can imagine, and probably too good to be real." (onelook.com) In that respect it (the sanctity of life as universal truth) would be an imagined good that we wish was real but obviously, as evidenced by reality, is too good to actually be real.

You know, this is even worse than the "blob of cells" dodge. Are you being serious, or just obtuse? I don't suppose you considered that some people might feel that the total elimination of their enemies is "as good as [they] can imagine", that "[they] wish was real"? So, to take your definition of "ideal", you just justified every act of brutality that ever occurred in human history, as long as it was "as good as [the perpetrator could] imagine". Thanks for proving my point that the argument that there are no universal values is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

If "onelook.com" is where you get your ideas, I'd like to suggest that you find an alternate source.

I was thinking out loud as much as anything. It struck me that one would think a "universal truth", if it were such, would have a power that a mere ideal, for lack of a better term, simply could not muster. The fact that this truth is abandoned at the drop of a hat seems to indicate humans actually have little regard for this truth and that it exercises, at the margins and where it is most important, neither power nor authority. If all life is truly sacred how could Hitler's Einsatzgruppen and their Jewish victims have ever reached an accord wherein the Jews lined up over pits and the soldiers shot them in the back of the head? The occurrence of such atrocities over and over and over again in our collective past right up to the present seems to indicate the lack of a universal truth rather than its existence. If it doesn't indicate the lack of a universal truth it appears to indicate a completely powerless universal truth which could easily be mistaken for "no truth at all".

I'm sorry....I obviously did not make my question clear.

"Are you regarding "universal truths" as having some kind of effect on DNA?"

If not, then by what process do you feel that a universal truth would exercise such power over human decision-making? If "truth" is a reflection of reality, then by what agency would it have any power at all, other than the power given it by the human mind that accepts it? TToney83 is right: the level of acceptance, approval, or adherence is irrelevant to the reality of the truth.

Don't you mean, crushing a blob of cells with a pair of forceps? Assuming the child has yet to develop a brain or to become self-conscious and is, in fact, a blob of cells why does it matter that that blob of cells is removed from the mother's body? How does that blob of cells differ from another blob of human cells other than in some potentiality that has not yet been attained; a potentiality that may well exist for other human cells also? What is it about that blob of cells that is so important that many are willing to force the mother to carry it to term even if it means endangering the mother's health and future welfare?

Ah, so you are picking an arbitrary line to draw, then? So "self-consciousness" is necessary, along with "a brain"? So, the location of the "blob of cells" is irrelevant, then?

So...you actually ascribe to the beliefs that are highlighted in the article in the OP?

Here's an actual distinction, vice an irrelevant and meaningless non-distinction like the one you used in your earlier "point": the genetic structure of the "blob of cells" is complete. The organism is complete. Undisturbed, it will continue....not potentially - definitely.....CONTINUE to grow and pass through it's stages of development. Genetically, it is a complete human being. That's how that "blob of cells" differs from any other. It has nothing to do with "potential". It's REALITY.

And as for "the mother's health and future welfare"...let's just put this one to bed for good, shall we? First of all, the left has so distorted those words and their meanings that they don't mean anything anymore. When those terms can be defined in any way via "convenience", you've long ago left any weight to them on the cutting room floor. The human female carries the gestating young for approximately nine months....that is REALITY. If human females don't like it, that is too bad....they need to grow up and start making better choices.

It's also irrelevant to the discussion. Two human lives....neither one trumps the other. In actual cases where there is a bona fide risk to both lives, the doctors treat both patients - because that's what they are - to the best of their abilities...just like any other life and death case.

And as far as rape and incest, perhaps if the left stopped trying to disarm people, and instead put their efforts into making a better person instead of "social engineering" their pet causes; they might actually have a real effect on that. In any case, it's still a human life. Perhaps in those tragic and heart-rending cases, if the left wanted to be true to an ideal, they might consider owning up to the fact that they are killing a child. That way, even if that's what ends up happening, it doesn't further coarsen and detach our society from the reality of its actions.

I suppose that is the only viable response when presented with a reality that doesn't fit an ideology.

I'm sorry....I obviously not only did not make my earlier question clear; I also failed to provide an obvious and unmissable link to what is essentially the same point later in the discussion.

"Are you regarding "universal truths" as having some kind of effect on DNA?" If you do not, then what does it matter if "it is easily and regularly abandoned"? What do you feel is the process by which it would exert that level of power over the decision making process of a human being?

I hope that we have cleared up any confusion, so that you can either attempt to properly answer the question or accept the fact that you don't know.

I may have already done this in this thread but I'll take another stab. If I veer from an earlier definition it is inadvertent, to the extent it might mislead, but likely because I've changed my mind. That said, I see a universal truth as a metaphysical entity existing separate and apart from humankind. It existed before humans were and will exist after humans have ceased to be. It is not a mental construct nor is it the consequence of a biological imperative such as the drive to survive and procreate. In that sense it has an, almost, physical reality.

So you believe it is a being of some kind? That's interesting....I guess that explains why you think it possesses a power over human beings' decision making processes. Doesn't really jive with the simple definition of truth as "conforming to fact or reality"; but it is a straight answer.

I would see it as the opposite of a universal truth. It is not a metaphysical entity. It is, in fact, a human construct engendered by the biological imperatives of survival and procreation. It may have evolved over time to become something other than a simple reflex of biology (perhaps an "ideal") but, at heart, it is human. As such, it neither predates humans nor will it exist after humans have gone. To that extent it has no reality other than as a mental construct.

As I thought, you have an issue with your vocabulary on this subject. A "biological imperative" as you appear to be using it is not a human construct. It is, in fact, a universal truth, in that a sexual species must procreate to survive; it is certainly not unique to humans. And it will exist long after humans as long as there are living organisms who must exist by it. This is reality...this is what truth is...."conforming to fact or reality". Do you deny this?

I think you're also making an assumption that what humans have done with their "biological imperatives" is necessarily an "evolution". That is not always the case; and in fact may not even be often the case. And it is there that you find your numerous examples of violations of universal truths, the adjudication of which is found in the reasoning behind the violation.

Perhaps you can provide me with your definitions so that we can compare notes?

You mean, perhaps I can again? Sure.

Truth - conforming to fact or reality
Universal - of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole; applicable everywhere or in all cases

[timcsaw]

Blob of cells indeed... I prefer "Bag of water" if you please.

[lepto]

A gestating anything is whatever that being is. It is Life, first and foremost, therefore it is Life WITH POTENTIAL as opposed to potential Life.

In the instant case I was thinking in terms of human life and when a human infant might reasonably be said to have become a person or, at least, demonstrably started that process. In this equation Life = Person-hood.

The Somali argument shows an understanding of the sanctity of THEIR lives vs. the lives of other groups/sects. It is a narrow perspective which does not see the bigger picture. How each Warlord values "Life" is irrelevant to the reality of Life being "sacred" or "special" in the sense that Life appears to be the object of Universal action or even Universal "intention."

I suppose I need to ask you what you mean by “Universal action” and “Universal intention” before I can try to respond to your point.

I'm not sure why, but I sense some blocking that you may not even be aware of. There is a world of difference between what is real and what is imagined. What is REAL from the actual observed data is that Life appears to be the end result, object, intention, of Universal physical action. From that perspective, Life is "special," "sacred," or at the very least worthy of special consideration by sentient, reflective, ostensibly rational beings such as ourselves.

I would agree that Life appears to be the purpose of Life. And, life is special considering we've not found evidence of it anywhere else in the known universe. Whether or not Life is sacred is another matter entirely and depends upon your definition of sacred.

Speaking to the bolded sentence above first, that is the free will of the individuals and groups involved. Just as in the Somali example cited by BlackKnight above, that the individuals involved do not identify the sanctity of Life in others is irrelevant to the Truth.

And, just as with BlackKnight, one wonders how much evidence it would take for you to question the sanctity argument? For every instance you present of sanctity I can, very likely, find a counterbalancing atrocity. The existence of such indifference to human life and suffering, not to mention that inflicted upon the animal world by humans, seems to strongly indicate there is no such thing as the Universal Truth of the Sanctity of Life.

It is almost as if you believe that a Universal Truth MUST be obeyed and that the beings inhabiting the Universe have no choice in the matter. Now, in the LONG run, that may be true that disobeying universal physical principles will result in "punishment" up to and including our potentially immortal species going extinct. I have no doubt that if we can not get our act together with regard to developing a proper moral foundation based upon Universal Principle we may well go extinct by our own hand because we can not recognize the sanctity of Life.

Bear with me as I'm trying to figure out what I believe also! I'm thinking that a Universal Truth must be more than a mere biological truth—at least for it to be the subject of an interesting debate. To that extent, if it exists, it should exert some authority that it, clearly, does not exert. A Universal Truth that exerts no authority begins, IMO, to look suspiciously like no Universal Truth at all.

First, again, at the very LEAST it is a collection of LIVING cells. From the perspective of the Universe, the Universe has invested something like quadrillions of terawatt hours of energy (or more) and untold amounts of matter into the creation of Life in general and Human Life in particular. We are an EXTREMELY expensive investment from that perspective, so who are we to destroy it so carelessly and thoughtlessly? We have greater consideration for our CARS than we do Human Life in some cases.

How much more energy has the Universe invested in the mother? I think you have to balance the potential life of the unborn against the principle of self-determination for the mother. At some point the fetus is simply a mass of cells that may or may not resemble a human and does not have the brain activity that would indicate minimal person-hood. Until that person-hood attaches the right of the woman to determine how she wishes to proceed vis-à-vis her own body is paramount.

I differentiate between Universal Principle and Universal physical principle.
Universal Principle for me is the MORE metaphysical.
Universal physical principle is the PHYSical reality we experience.
Neither of these two classes of "Truth" for me are mental constructs. We might create definitions to help us understand them, but they are not dependent upon our definitions to exist and act.

I've been thinking of Universal Truth in the metaphysical sense. For me Universal Truth, in the metaphysical sense, would imply something larger than the mere “laws of nature”. The notion of Universal Truth implies a thing in itself, operating at a reserve, that guides all else. Biological truth would seem to be merely an affirmation of that we can readily observe, i.e., the end goal of life appears to be more life. That goal, in and of itself, doesn't appear to exist outside of the natural world except as a premise or a mental construct. It is certainly not provable it preexisted actual life unless your definition is so broad as to include the energy that was transformed from one state into the state we think of as life.

It is readily apparent that Life is the culmination of Universal action. It would seem that what you identify as a mere biological imperative is in fact a Universal physical principle which predated humanity and will exist even after we are gone.

It is in no way apparent that Life is the culmination of Universal action (of course I might change my mind once I see your definition of Universal action). Life appears to the exception rather than the rule. The biological imperative of life perpetuating life is just that—a biological imperative and not some metaphysical notion of a thing in itself existing separate and apart from the very biology upon which it operates.

[lepto]

Please tell me that you are not seriously trying to posit that non-distinction. Tissue is nothing more than an organization of cells. So a "blob of cells" is a "blob of tissue". I hate to break it to you, but you are a "blob of tissue", if we use your "(nontechnical) definition"....as is everyone else.

You attempted to draw a distinction, admittedly, in a left-handed fashion, between a gestating baby and a blob of tissue. I was merely pointing out that, in fact, a gestating baby is a blob of tissue as are we all.

You know, this is even worse than the "blob of cells" dodge. Are you being serious, or just obtuse? I don't suppose you considered that some people might feel that the total elimination of their enemies is "as good as [they] can imagine", that "[they] wish was real"? So, to take your definition of "ideal", you just justified every act of brutality that ever occurred in human history, as long as it was "as good as [the perpetrator could] imagine". Thanks for proving my point that the argument that there are no universal values is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

My notion of an ideal is no more intellectually or morally bankrupt than your notion of a universal value. Some people might believe in the Social Darwinian model as a universal value. Under that model the strong weed out and supplant the weak thereby improving society as whole. Whole civilizations or ethnicities could be wiped out using that value as a justification. In using the term “ideal” I was trying to provide some distinction between my conception of truth and the notion of a universal value not as a means of obfuscation.

If "onelook.com" is where you get your ideas, I'd like to suggest that you find an alternate source.

I've always thought Onelook a very good dictionary source. Do you have a better one you can recommend?

I'm sorry....I obviously did not make my question clear.

"Are you regarding "universal truths" as having some kind of effect on DNA?"

If not, then by what process do you feel that a universal truth would exercise such power over human decision-making? If "truth" is a reflection of reality, then by what agency would it have any power at all, other than the power given it by the human mind that accepts it? TToney83 is right: the level of acceptance, approval, or adherence is irrelevant to the reality of the truth.

Take a look at my answer to ttoney above. My question to him holds for you, “is there a reasonable number of exceptions to the rule such that the weight of sheer numbers would convince you that life is not sacred?”

Ah, so you are picking an arbitrary line to draw, then? So "self-consciousness" is necessary, along with "a brain"? So, the location of the "blob of cells" is irrelevant, then?

So...you actually ascribe to the beliefs that are highlighted in the article in the OP?

Humans are always choosing arbitrary lines in governing their personal existence as well as that of their society. It is the inability to select a reasonable line that leads to anarchy in self as well as the body politic. You can see this played out in the individuals who murder abortion doctors and in anti-abortion groups, like the nuts who protest at military funerals, or “pro-family” groups like Focus On The Family.

Here's an actual distinction, vice an irrelevant and meaningless non-distinction like the one you used in your earlier "point": the genetic structure of the "blob of cells" is complete. The organism is complete. Undisturbed, it will continue....not potentially - definitely.....CONTINUE to grow and pass through it's stages of development. Genetically, it is a complete human being. That's how that "blob of cells" differs from any other. It has nothing to do with "potential". It's REALITY.

So what? Just because it has the potential, if “undisturbed”, to grow into a person does not mean it is a person at the moment of conception. It takes time for the fetus to reach a stage where we can reasonably say that it is a “person” rather than a gestating blob of tissue.

And as for "the mother's health and future welfare"...let's just put this one to bed for good, shall we? First of all, the left has so distorted those words and their meanings that they don't mean anything anymore. When those terms can be defined in any way via "convenience", you've long ago left any weight to them on the cutting room floor. The human female carries the gestating young for approximately nine months....that is REALITY. If human females don't like it, that is too bad....they need to grow up and start making better choices.

I can understand this typically blinkered male view of pregnancy but you will pardon me if I don't agree. As to the left your view seems to be somewhat stereotypical in nature. I know a lot of lefties and, just like with any other issue, they are all over the board as regards abortion. Most support the right to an abortion but such notions as the what constitutes the legitimate health of the mother or when life begins are issues of much debate.

It's also irrelevant to the discussion. Two human lives....neither one trumps the other. In actual cases where there is a bona fide risk to both lives, the doctors treat both patients - because that's what they are - to the best of their abilities...just like any other life and death case.

In this you are wrong. Until one becomes a person it is nothing more than an appendage of the mother. As such it should be the first thing to be jettisoned if the mother's life is in danger; assuming, of course, that is the desire of the mother.

And as far as rape and incest, perhaps if the left stopped trying to disarm people, and instead put their efforts into making a better person instead of "social engineering" their pet causes; they might actually have a real effect on that. In any case, it's still a human life. Perhaps in those tragic and heart-rending cases, if the left wanted to be true to an ideal, they might consider owning up to the fact that they are killing a child. That way, even if that's what ends up happening, it doesn't further coarsen and detach our society from the reality of its actions.

Are you using “disarm” in terms of actually taking arms away from people? As to a pregnancy from rape or incest have you ever seen such a thing? I have and it was one of the worst things I've ever had the pleasure to observe. I had a client once who had impregnated his 13 year old daughter. She was forced to carry the child to term by her ignorant, silly-assed mother. Having that child literally devastated her life. She had to be removed from school, because the other children found out she was pregnant by her father and taunted her unmercifully, and, eventually, she and her mother were forced to leave town. I can truthfully say her father was the one client, in all of my criminal clients, that I could have capped without a second's remorse. Luckily he made threats on my life so I was able to petition the court to be relieved from his defense and was not forced to look a jury in the eye and make the argument he was not guilty.

I give this example because it shouldn't be imagined this kind of stuff only happens rarely. It happens all of the time and it must be taken into account. By using the “every sperm is sacred” extreme view of when life begins you (anti-abortion proponents in general) inculcate the low-order reasoning used by the mother in the above instance. In her view the life of a person who did not exist trumped the actual life of her daughter. In forcing her daughter to carry that child to term she committed, what amounted to, a state-sanctioned act of violence upon her own child of horrific proportions. She should have been placed in jail right along side her despicable husband.

I'm sorry....I obviously not only did not make my earlier question clear; I also failed to provide an obvious and unmissable link to what is essentially the same point later in the discussion.

"Are you regarding "universal truths" as having some kind of effect on DNA?" If you do not, then what does it matter if "it is easily and regularly abandoned"? What do you feel is the process by which it would exert that level of power over the decision making process of a human being?

I hope that we have cleared up any confusion, so that you can either attempt to properly answer the question or accept the fact that you don't know.

I have no idea how it would exert such power but then neither do I know how gravity works. It seems to me that a universal truth, for it to be such, would be something more than a mere biological truth.

So you believe it is a being of some kind? That's interesting....I guess that explains why you think it possesses a power over human beings' decision making processes. Doesn't really jive with the simple definition of truth as "conforming to fact or reality"; but it is a straight answer.

I've tried to distinguish between a metaphysical truth and a truth of nature.

As I thought, you have an issue with your vocabulary on this subject. A "biological imperative" as you appear to be using it is not a human construct. It is, in fact, a universal truth, in that a sexual species must procreate to survive; it is certainly not unique to humans. And it will exist long after humans as long as there are living organisms who must exist by it. This is reality...this is what truth is...."conforming to fact or reality". Do you deny this?

It sounds like your universal truth and my biological imperative are one and the same. The real question is whether or not you believe your universal truth will exist after all life on this planet has ended?

I think you're also making an assumption that what humans have done with their "biological imperatives" is necessarily an "evolution". That is not always the case; and in fact may not even be often the case. And it is there that you find your numerous examples of violations of universal truths, the adjudication of which is found in the reasoning behind the violation.

Interesting point. Could you flesh it out a little?

You mean, perhaps I can again? Sure.

Truth - conforming to fact or reality
Universal - of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole; applicable everywhere or in all cases

Do you subscribe to the notion of metaphysical truth?

Blob of cells indeed... I prefer "Bag of water" if you please.

What about “appendage” as a middle ground definition?