Abortion and Welfare

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

Yes, now you're getting it

[Ashmoria]

A lot of people in the abortion thread have said that no person should be forced to support another human being (or fetus, whatever.)

Well, isn't welfare just that? You are forced to pay a tax that is given to another human being so they and their ilk can continue to survive.

Basically you are forced to support another human being and help keep them alive, even if you don't want to. Isn't this wrong?

if you were being forced to support a stranger, it would be kinda wrong.

the government supporting citizens--not so wrong.

So I personally know every citizen in the United States?

And if I don't, doesn't that make them strangers?

And its okay to be forced to do something (say give up your house) to someone else as long as you know them?

no dear. you arent supporting those millions of strangers. you dont have that much money. the government is.

the reason i put in "stranger" is because it isnt wrong to be forced to support certain family members but i didnt want to get into it.

[Zoharland]

How does most all societies agreeing to something make it morally right? At one time most societies agreed that slavery was okay. Is that right?

It was then. It's not now.

And furthermore, why should I have to leave my home because society has the wrong idea about what charity is?

Society is what lets you maintain your home. If there were no society, anyone could just take your home from you and face no legal repercussions. If you disagree with some aspects of your society, then, you can either work to change them or move to a different society.

Lets say hypothetically that somehow, some sort of Nazi party was elected to power in the US. Is the only option I have really just to leave the country, or do I have the right to oppose them?

I'm not talking about the state, mind, but if over 95% of the US agreed with Nazi ideals -- to the point where opposing Nazism would be widely considered immoral -- the only option you would have would be to leave the country, since convincing 280 million people or thereabouts to change their minds isn't easy.

This is a stupid hypothetical, though, since even the real Nazi party didn't have the support of the majority of society; it maintained its rule through fear, not through popular support.

And if the majority of said society supports the ideals and platforms upon which this party is elected, and the actions that they carry out, does that make those ideals and actions morally right?

Depends on the percentage of society.

I mean, if 97% of society decides killing people is wrong, the 3% who disagree become "immoral". If only 51% of society decides killing people is wrong and a sufficiently large minority (in this case 49%) disagrees, there's no clear consensus, so we can't make a statement on the morality of killing people one way or the other and instead have to think up logical (not ethical) arguments for or against it. Consensus ≠ majority, or even supermajority; consensus = majority view + time + indoctrination, more or less.

1) So whats the point of pointing out human rights abuses in, say, Saudi Arabia? If the majority of Saudi Arabians or Iranians or whatever think its okay to murder someone for being a homosexual, and if the society of these countries therefore agree, what makes it morally wrong?

2) Understood, you can either work to change society or leave. Does that make said ideas and actions of the society morally right though?

3) Again, would that make the ideas the Nazi's supporters espouse right though? Oh, and they did at some point, as they were elected at some point. Hitler didn't have to coerce everyone, he actually had a large number of supporters.

4) So if the majority of society (say, 89%) decided it was okay for abortion to be outlawed, to force women to go ahead with them (pregnancies), and to make criminals of both doctors performing and women seeking abortions, you'd be okay with that?

Or rather, would you think its wrong? And would it be morally wrong?

[Zoharland]

A lot of people in the abortion thread have said that no person should be forced to support another human being (or fetus, whatever.)

Well, isn't welfare just that? You are forced to pay a tax that is given to another human being so they and their ilk can continue to survive.

Basically you are forced to support another human being and help keep them alive, even if you don't want to. Isn't this wrong?

if you were being forced to support a stranger, it would be kinda wrong.

the government supporting citizens--not so wrong.

So I personally know every citizen in the United States?

And if I don't, doesn't that make them strangers?

And its okay to be forced to do something (say give up your house) to someone else as long as you know them?

no dear. you arent supporting those millions of strangers. you dont have that much money. the government is.

the reason i put in "stranger" is because it isnt wrong to be forced to support certain family members but i didnt want to get into it.

And the government is supporting them with some of my money, amongst other peoples. Money that I don't want them to support them with. Why isn't that wrong?

Oh, and by family members, I assume you mean children? That isn't true, you can always put your children up for adoption, you aren't really forced to pay for them. If you do so, you do so of your own volition.

[Ashmoria]

And the government is supporting them with some of my money, amongst other peoples. Money that I don't want them to support them with. Why isn't that wrong?

Oh, and by family members, I assume you mean children? That isn't true, you can always put your children up for adoption, you aren't really forced to pay for them. If you do so, you do so of your own volition.

welcome to the modern world.

the government spends your tax money on things you dont approve of. same for me but i guess my list of things would be different than yours.

[Zoharland]

And the government is supporting them with some of my money, amongst other peoples. Money that I don't want them to support them with. Why isn't that wrong?

Oh, and by family members, I assume you mean children? That isn't true, you can always put your children up for adoption, you aren't really forced to pay for them. If you do so, you do so of your own volition.

welcome to the modern world.

the government spends your tax money on things you dont approve of. same for me but i guess my list of things would be different than yours.

Why should the government be able to do this though?

And whats with the "oh well" attitude? Shouldn't this sort of thing infuriate you, that these bastards can take whats yours by force? And use it for something you may not agree with, such as war or bailing out rich fat-cats.

Perhaps if less people had an "Oh well" attitude, and demanded more of their leaders, this wouldn't be the sad reality of the "Modern" world.

Oh, and finally, that "this is just the way it is" attitude doesn't answer whether its morally right for the government to force you to support another.

[Soratsin]

Why should the government be able to do this though?

And whats with the "oh well" attitude? Shouldn't this sort of thing infuriate you, that these bastards can take whats yours by force? And use it for something you may not agree with, such as war or bailing out rich fat-cats.

Perhaps if less people had an "Oh well" attitude, and demanded more of their leaders, this wouldn't be the sad reality of the "Modern" world.

Oh, and finally, that "this is just the way it is" attitude doesn't answer whether its morally right for the government to force you to support another.

That's how modern social contracts work, people agree to give up some rights and a portion of their income in exchange for benefits that the government provides. Since the state has to govern a large, diverse populace, they will inevitably have to provide a service for people that others may not use and may not want to pay for.

[Ashmoria]

And the government is supporting them with some of my money, amongst other peoples. Money that I don't want them to support them with. Why isn't that wrong?

Oh, and by family members, I assume you mean children? That isn't true, you can always put your children up for adoption, you aren't really forced to pay for them. If you do so, you do so of your own volition.

welcome to the modern world.

the government spends your tax money on things you dont approve of. same for me but i guess my list of things would be different than yours.

Why should the government be able to do this though?

And whats with the "oh well" attitude? Shouldn't this sort of thing infuriate you, that these bastards can take whats yours by force? And use it for something you may not agree with, such as war or bailing out rich fat-cats.

Perhaps if less people had an "Oh well" attitude, and demanded more of their leaders, this wouldn't be the sad reality of the "Modern" world.

Oh, and finally, that "this is just the way it is" attitude doesn't answer whether its morally right for the government to force you to support another.

oh for god's sake the government can force a gun into your hand so you can shoot someone that some old white man has decided is our freaking enemy. and you worry yourself over a tax you dont like?

i dont have a problem with welfare. it makes for a much better society when people dont have to kill each other over scraps of bread. not having children begging in the streets is SOOOO much nicer than having parents cripple little johnny so that he will bring in more cash per day.

[Czardas]

1) So whats the point of pointing out human rights abuses in, say, Saudi Arabia? If the majority of Saudi Arabians or Iranians or whatever think its okay to murder someone for being a homosexual, and if the society of these countries therefore agree, what makes it morally wrong?

Society covers more than just one nation. A better term, I suppose, may have been "civilization". Ever since 1945 or thereabouts we -- humanity or civilization as a whole -- have had a consensus on what counts as a human right: the International Declaration of Human Rights, or whatever it's called. You've already made the mistake of equating the state with society, don't make the mistake of equating the nation with society either.

2) Understood, you can either work to change society or leave. Does that make said ideas and actions of the society morally right though?

Depends on what the rest of the world thinks. If it's receiving dozens of international condemnations and the scorn of every other country out there, it's probably wrong.

3) Again, would that make the ideas the Nazi's supporters espouse right though? Oh, and they did at some point, as they were elected at some point. Hitler didn't have to coerce everyone, he actually had a large number of supporters.

Yes, but they did not make up a majority, only a plurality of the country; moreover, Hitler took power by declaring himself chancellor-for-life in a decidedly undemocratic move.

4) So if the majority of society (say, 89%) decided it was okay for abortion to be outlawed, to force women to go ahead with them (pregnancies), and to make criminals of both doctors performing and women seeking abortions, you'd be okay with that?

Or rather, would you think its wrong? And would it be morally wrong?

I wouldn't be okay with it, but it would be morally right. I would work to change it, or move elsewhere, but changing morals takes time -- years or centuries sometimes.

[Bitchkitten]

And the government is supporting them with some of my money, amongst other peoples. Money that I don't want them to support them with. Why isn't that wrong?

Oh, and by family members, I assume you mean children? That isn't true, you can always put your children up for adoption, you aren't really forced to pay for them. If you do so, you do so of your own volition.

welcome to the modern world.

the government spends your tax money on things you dont approve of. same for me but i guess my list of things would be different than yours.

Why should the government be able to do this though?

And whats with the "oh well" attitude? Shouldn't this sort of thing infuriate you, that these bastards can take whats yours by force? And use it for something you may not agree with, such as war or bailing out rich fat-cats.

Perhaps if less people had an "Oh well" attitude, and demanded more of their leaders, this wouldn't be the sad reality of the "Modern" world.

Oh, and finally, that "this is just the way it is" attitude doesn't answer whether its morally right for the government to force you to support another.

By living in a society you agree to live by it's rules. If you can't perhaps you can manage to find some deserted island to live on.

[Dempublicents1]

The argument in favour of abortion is based around property rights. In short, others cannot use your property without your consent, whether they are burglars or unborn babies.

Not really. The wording is often phrased in the same way a property rights argument for lack of better terms. But they way in which you have "ownership" of yourself - of your own body - is actually much more stringent than ownership of property. It is true that, in general, others cannot use your property without your consent. But it is absolutely true that others cannot use your body without your consent.

[Dempublicents1]

And the government is supporting them with some of my money, amongst other peoples. Money that I don't want them to support them with. Why isn't that wrong?

For the same reason that the government provides you all sorts of support with tax money, while others might not want you to get that support. And, if you were in need of welfare, you would be just as entitled to it as anyone else.

You live your life on the structure provided by the government so, like everyone else, you are expected to contribute to the maintenance of that structure. You can certainly work to change the particular services provided by the government, but the fact that the government does provide services to everyone, and that everyone who can contribute should therefore be expected to, remains.

[Czardas]

The argument in favour of abortion is based around property rights. In short, others cannot use your property without your consent, whether they are burglars or unborn babies.

Not really. The wording is often phrased in the same way a property rights argument for lack of better terms. But they way in which you have "ownership" of yourself - of your own body - is actually much more stringent than ownership of property. It is true that, in general, others cannot use your property without your consent. But it is absolutely true that others cannot use your body without your consent.

Can you name a situation in which others can use your property without your consent?

[Soheran]

Well, isn't welfare just that?

No.

You are forced to pay a tax that is given to another human being so they and their ilk can continue to survive.

You have no moral right to what you would earn in a hypothetical perfect market capitalism. Adjusting economic outcomes thus in no sense deprives you of anything to which you are entitled, unlike compulsory pregnancy, which deprives a woman of control over her own body.

[Soheran]

Left-wingers who are pro-choice will claim that you can withdraw your consent to provide mandatory welfare by moving to another country, the same way that you can withdraw your consent to provide mandatory pregnancy by aborting.

Not me. This is a dreadfully poor argument. Among other things, the conservative could always rejoin, "Yeah, and you could always choose to move to another country before having sex, too."

[Czardas]

You have no moral right to what you would earn in a hypothetical perfect market capitalism.

Since rights derive from society and its legal system, yes, you do.

Morality is generally indistinguishable from law when that law is made by consensus (i.e. the Constitution).

[Soheran]

I wouldn't be okay with it, but it would be morally right.

No, it wouldn't be.

The opponents of abortion would say it's morally right, not because it is the social consensus, but because the state has the right (indeed, the duty) to protect unborn fetuses, even at the expense of the bodily autonomy of women. This, in turn, will be founded on a certain account of the moral worth of fetuses--an account that is highly unlikely to be dependent on social consensus. Nobody says "Fetuses are valuable because we say they are available": they regard them as valuable because they think there is some independent reason for their value.

Either this independent moral claim (and associated ones like "The state can regulate women's bodies") actually holds true, or it does not. I fail to see why people's opinions of whether or not it holds true makes the slightest difference.

[Soheran]

Since rights derive from society and its legal system, yes, you do.

Maybe, but then you have to recognize that the tax system is a pretty important part of "society and its legal system"...

[Czardas]

I wouldn't be okay with it, but it would be morally right.

No, it wouldn't be.

The opponents of abortion would say it's morally right, not because it is the social consensus, but because the state has the right (indeed, the duty) to protect unborn fetuses, even at the expense of the bodily autonomy of women. This, in turn, will be founded on a certain account of the moral worth of fetuses--an account that is highly unlikely to be dependent on social consensus. Nobody says "Fetuses are valuable because we say they are available": they regard them as valuable because they think there is some independent reason for their value.

Either this independent moral claim (and associated ones like "The state can regulate women's bodies") actually holds true, or it does not. I fail to see why people's opinions of whether or not it holds true makes the slightest difference.

Where does morality derive from then, if not from consensus?

If the independent moral claim ("the potential life of a fetus is more valuable than the actual life of a mother for some reason") is accepted by society, it becomes morality. Just like the independent moral claim backing up slavery ("black people are a different species from white people, and were designed/intended to serve them") was accepted by society as morality until biology showed that they were exactly the same species as white people and exploration demonstrated that they were just as culturally advanced.

[Czardas]

Since rights derive from society and its legal system, yes, you do.

Maybe, but then you have to recognize that the tax system is a pretty important part of "society and its legal system"...

Well, yes. The government is permitted to tax you for certain purposes. It's not permitted to use your property for any other reason, however, not without due process of law.

[Tech-gnosis]

Can you name a situation in which others can use your property without your consent?

There is usufruct and the freedom to roam are two situations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

[Soheran]

Where does morality derive from then, if not from consensus?

Where does any truth "derive from"? It may even be the case that all moral statements are false, or meaningless: I have not shown otherwise. But clearly they cannot be matters of consensus. From "People think it is right" it simply does not follow that "It is right."

If the independent moral claim ("the potential life of a fetus is more valuable than the actual life of a mother for some reason") is accepted by society, it becomes morality.

No, it doesn't. The people who advance the claim don't think that's the case: they make references to the intrinsic rights of human beings (regardless of whether or not they are respected) and the moral corruption inherent in asserting a property right to kill (again, regardless of whether or not such a right is socially accepted). The people who argue against the claim don't think that's the case: they think the claim is wrong regardless of whether or not people accept it, because they think (either/both) anti-abortionists are overinclusive in their notion of "who counts" and too limited in their conception of autonomy.

Everyone (but you) is talking about a standard independent of what happens to be their opinion: it is their opinion, but they come up with actual reasons beyond that mere fact to demonstrate that it is actually the case. This is because it is a basic category error to conflate "People think x" with "X is actually true." When discussing what is right or wrong, saying "The consensus is x" does not answer the question.

Just like the independent moral claim backing up slavery ("black people are a different species from white people, and were designed/intended to serve them") was accepted by society as morality

Right. "[A]ccepted by society as morality." And the Greeks accepted as scientific truth the notion that the Sun and the planets orbited the Earth. So? Both were wrong.

[Czardas]

Where does morality derive from then, if not from consensus?

Where does any truth "derive from"?

Empirical observation and logic.

It may even be the case that all moral statements are false, or meaningless: I have not shown otherwise. But clearly they cannot be matters of consensus. From "People think it is right" it simply does not follow that "It is right."

That is because "it is right" is a meaningless statement. There is no such thing as objective morality.

If the independent moral claim ("the potential life of a fetus is more valuable than the actual life of a mother for some reason") is accepted by society, it becomes morality.

No, it doesn't. The people who advance the claim don't think that's the case: they make references to the intrinsic rights of human beings (regardless of whether or not they are respected) and the moral corruption inherent in asserting a property right to kill (again, regardless of whether or not such a right is socially accepted). The people who argue against the claim don't think that's the case: they think the claim is wrong regardless of whether or not people accept it, because they think (either/both) anti-abortionists are overinclusive in their notion of "who counts" and too limited in their conception of autonomy.

Everyone (but you) is talking about a standard independent of what happens to be their opinion: it is their opinion, but they come up with actual reasons beyond that mere fact to demonstrate that it is actually the case. This is because it is a basic category error to conflate "People think x" with "X is actually true." When discussing what is right or wrong, saying "The consensus is x" does not answer the question.

Okay, show me something inherent in the nature of the universe that makes actions right or wrong. Grind down the universe to its component particles, and find a physical law in how they interact that determines that human beings have the right to life.

Just like the independent moral claim backing up slavery ("black people are a different species from white people, and were designed/intended to serve them") was accepted by society as morality

Right. "[A]ccepted by society as morality." And the Greeks accepted as scientific truth the notion that the Sun and the planets orbited the Earth. So? Both were wrong.

Scientifically, they were wrong. Morally, they were right. Slavery was perfectly acceptable, and didn't have a pseudoscientific basis in ancient Greece either.

[Soheran]

Empirical observation and logic.

Both independent standards, that have nothing to do with anyone's opinion.

That is because "it is right" is a meaningless statement.

Then don't make it! If you don't think statements of right have any meaning, don't pretend that social consensus has any meaningful normative import. Your response to a thread like this should not be "People think you should pay taxes but don't think you should be compelled into pregnancy", but rather "Moral statements are devoid of meaning, so your post is the equivalent of, say, the barks of a dog" (edit: or, more charitably, you could make an emotivist case and say it means "I don't like taxation.")

(Of course, that position gets you into other problems, but one meta-ethical issue at a time.)

Okay, show me something inherent in the nature of the universe that makes actions right or wrong. Grind down the universe to its component particles, and find a physical law in how they interact that determines that human beings have the right to life.

You are seriously confused about how philosophers understand "objective morality", and the kinds of discussion that surround its grounding, but, again, one meta-ethical issue at a time.

To say "morality has no grounding" is not the same as to say "morality is grounded in social consensus." Indeed, the two are mutually contradictory.

Slavery was perfectly acceptable

This has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is right.

[Czardas]

Empirical observation and logic.

Both independent standards, that have nothing to do with anyone's opinion.

Exactly.

That is because "it is right" is a meaningless statement.

Then don't make it! If you don't think statements of right have any meaning, don't pretend that social consensus has any meaningful normative import. Your response to a thread like this should not be "People think you should pay taxes but don't think you should be compelled into pregnancy", but rather "Moral statements are devoid of meaning, so your post is the equivalent of, say, the barks of a dog."

I agree. "It is right because x", however, is the most meaningful way to others to explain why morality is the way it is. I am not trying to explain whether something is right or wrong, but whether it is acceptable or unacceptable.

Okay, show me something inherent in the nature of the universe that makes actions right or wrong. Grind down the universe to its component particles, and find a physical law in how they interact that determines that human beings have the right to life.

You are seriously confused about how philosophers understand "objective morality", and the kinds of discussion that surround its grounding, but, again, one meta-ethical issue at a time.

To say "morality has no grounding" is not the same as to say "morality is grounded in social consensus." Indeed, the two are mutually contradictory.

I'm only making one of those statements. Which one is it?

Slavery was perfectly acceptable

This has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is right.

Slavery is currently unacceptable. This has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is wrong.