Atheists: explain where your moral system comes from

[Lone Wolf]

I feel less bad turning off that kids life support machine because I had to recharge my mobile phone now! I like your moral system LW!

That isn't a moral dilemma in the first place.

 

[Plotinus]

[Ziggy] Well, think of a "white lie" scenario. Suppose I rescue a woman from a blazing fire, but she is fatally wounded and about to die. She asks whether her children were rescued. I know that in fact they perished in the fire. Do I tell her the truth, or do I lie and say they were rescued, so that she can die happy about that at least?

In such a situation one might think there are good reasons pulling us both ways. On the one hand we have a strong intuition that lying is a bad thing (and lying to someone who is dying is somehow particularly base). That could be called a Kantian intuition (since Kant thinks that rules such as "do not lie" are absolute and should never be broken). On the other hand, telling the woman the truth would cause her great distress in her last moments. It would serve no good purpose, whereas telling her a lie would ease her greatly; it would bring about some happiness and have no bad consequences (it would not cause anyone any distress). That could be called a utilitarian intuition (since utilitarianism - at least act utilitarianism - states that we should do whatever has the best consequences).

If I find myself unsure which of these two actions I should do, it's probably because I'm not really committed to either of these ethical systems. If I were a committed Kantian or a committed utilitarian it would be clear, but I'm not, because I'm a normal person (more or less) and not a specialist philosopher of ethics. What I'm suggesting is that a normal person would regard the two possible actions as each permissible. Suppose that I decide to tell the truth to the dying woman. Later, you hear of what I did. You might say "Well, I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do, but I can see why you did it, because I can see that the idea that you shouldn't tell lies has got something going for it." Or suppose that I decide to lie to the dying woman - you might respond similarly, "I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do, but I can see why you did it, because I can see that the idea that you should try to cause the least suffering you can makes a lot of sense." Either way, you don't blame me for my action. The key thing is that each of the possible actions has what seems to be a decent justification for why it's the right thing to do. As long as I perform an action which has such a justification, I can't really be fairly blamed for making that decision. And that's what it means for an act to be permissible. So we have a way of distinguishing between actions that are morally permissible and actions that are not morally permissible, and this way seems to accord with common sense and with how we actually do think, but it doesn't require us to hold any particular ethical theory about which actions are right or what rightness is. It only requires us to recognise that some actions are at least plausibly justifiable by appealing to such theories, and others aren't.

 

[Mise]

edit: Sorry about this, first need to get some things clear.

Is the ability to be able to handle abortion the litmus test for ethical systems?

Well, it's a pretty important moral question, don't you think? Personally I think it's a fraught question, because the moral status of the foetus is a crucial part of the problem, and also a very difficult one to answer. (Not all moral systems care whether it's alive per se, though. Utilitarians would only care whether it feels pain or pleasure, etc.)

The problem with the Golden Rule, though, is that, even if that question is resolved, and we do establish (through medical fact, or mutual acceptance for arguments' sake) the moral status of the foetus, the GR still doesn't help us with abortion. It doesn't even take into consideration what the mother thinks!

Even if you believe that other ethical systems give unsatisfactory (or downright wrong) results on abortion, they at least tell us something. The Golden Rule doesn't tell us anything.

And abortion isn't the only thing the GR can't handle.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thanks Plotinus for the explanation about the systems. It also strengthens my opinion that even though someone subscribes to a system, this doesn't mean he will follow that system to the letter, but rather the intent behind it. Even within a system there will be conflicts and there will be a decision needed to be made, and priorities to be determined.

Well, it's a pretty important moral question, don't you think? Personally I think it's a fraught question, because the moral status of the foetus is a crucial part of the problem, and also a very difficult one to answer. (Not all moral systems care whether it's alive per se, though. Utilitarians would only care whether it feels pain or pleasure, etc.)

I agree. But I don't think there is a system which is able to deal with the whole spectrum of circumstances which tag along with the abortion scenario. Rape, threat to the mother's health, etc.

The GR doesn't explicitly state my moral look at abortion, but it does give some pointers. For instance, I don't like pain. It would be immoral for me to inflict pain. When the foetus is in the stage it can't feel pain the GR doesn't help me much, in the stage where it has developed a CC, it does, and at that point for me the status of the foetus changes.

I don't like putting people in harms way. This is more complicated. If we're at the stage that the foetus does not feel pain, and the live of the mother is threatened, it's clear to me. In case the foetus has developed a CC, it becomes a matter of weighing two evils against each other. What if the mother will almost certainly die?

In these cases I am rather pleased not to subscribe to a system which is absolute in it's verdict. Because such systems completely disregard the many circumstances and varying situations such a moral dilemma is surrounded with.

The problem with the Golden Rule, though, is that, even if that question is resolved, and we do establish (through medical fact, or mutual acceptance for arguments' sake) the moral status of the foetus, the GR still doesn't help us with abortion. It doesn't even take into consideration what the mother thinks!

I think it does. The GR as I see it is being empathic with all those involved, not saying to yourself, "I would want this, thus the mother would want this", rather "what if I were the mother, what would I want?", but even that is not applicable when the mother is available to tell me what she wants. In that case it becomes "As the mother, I would want my opinion to be heard"

edit 3: I also think this kills the masochist objection which was raised. A masochist would have to reason form the perspective: "what if I weren't a masochist?"

Even if you believe that other ethical systems give unsatisfactory (or downright wrong) results on abortion, they at least tell us something. The Golden Rule doesn't tell us anything.

And abortion isn't the only thing the GR can't handle.

No, it can to a certain extent, yes it can't handle every single thing. It's rather hard for me to be empathic towards a foetus since it's rather hard to learn what it wants.

And again, I don't see GR as a system which will deliver a system with nice clear morality rules, it's rather a system which motivates you to try to be empathic with others. And making decisions with that empathy in mind if that makes any sense.


edit: Afterthought, I find the objection, "It doesn't even take into consideration what the mother thinks!" rather odd, since many ethical systems don't, and the GR does give an incentive to take that into account. It's in fact one of the main objections against the strict Christian system.

edit 2: sorry about all the edits, but I don't think I've delved this deep into ethical systems, GR and morality before, so my thoughts on this mater aren't ready made. I catch myself effing up and having second thoughts. Very interesting stuff so I appreciate the feedback.

 

[Akka]

Akka, using the "spirit" of the GR and not blantly its wording, what would be your position on say abortion for example?
I'm really not nitpicking, I actually also cherish the GR. But fact is in many cases the GR was just useless

The GR isn't useless, on the contrary ; it's useless ONLY when people do precisely what happens in this thread, by using it in a way completely litteral. But if you use it as it's supposed to be - not just limiting oneself to the plain letter, but getting the spirit - then it's actually extremely efficient and useful.

As for the abortion, well, the woman has the highest right on her own body, and the embryo hasn't even developped a brain - hence any ability to think and be - before the second trimester. So I don't see any problem with abortion during the first three monthes.
After that, it becomes quite a bit blurry, because you start to have the right of owning your own body vs the right to live of the fetus, but I still tend to favour the choice of abortion until the fetus has a developped nervous system. After that, I don't support abortion unless there is health risks for the mothers.

But honestly, I don't really see how relevant it is to the main point of the thread.


(I didn't forget you, Orange, but as this post is much shorter and easier to answer, I started with it ; I'm going to answer yours now, and I'm afraid it will take quite a bit of time ^^)

The problem with the Golden Rule, though, is that, even if that question is resolved, and we do establish (through medical fact, or mutual acceptance for arguments' sake) the moral status of the foetus, the GR still doesn't help us with abortion. It doesn't even take into consideration what the mother thinks!

I really don't understand how you can reach such a ridiculous conclusion, while the GR is about exactly the opposite, but it certainly prove you got absolutely NOTHING about the principle it represents.

 

[Akka]

Okay look. In order to to argue about ethics you have to follow certain ground rules. If you don't then we're speaking jibberish.

The first and most important is that a system of ethics has to explain something. It has to explain how to act.This is obvious. saying something like: "you should act goodly" doesn't explain anything. I still need to know what "goodly" is. You can call this not following the 'spirit' of the word all you want. You can call this nitpicky all you want. However the basic fact is that saying "you should act goodly" is not good enough for an ethical system. Agree?

First, do you realize that's the point of the GR and reciprocity ? Helping you decide what is "good" and what is "bad" ?
Second, when I talk about nitpîcking, I talk about taking a sentence to the letter, without considering the meaning. Cue the joke above, that give the exact same kind of example.
Third, yes the GR is not the END by itself, as said a million time it's only the basis, the "first brick". It's the most important part because everything else is drawn from it, because it's the underlying foundation, and just like in construction the foundations by themselves don't make a house, but the house can't stand without them. That's what the GR is, the foundation, nothing more but certainly nothing less.

Now, if you're going to say something like "we should respect other people's views" or "we should be reciprocal" or something like that, then you're not explaining anything. It seems like all you're saying is that we should consider everything before we act. In philosophy we call this a trivial truth. No one disputes that; it's obvious. What we care about is how to determine what to do once we've considered everything. You can bemoan all you want that its "just a general principle" and what-not, but the point still stands. YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING ANYTHING. I can't reinforce this enough.

I really can't even begin to understand how you manage to separate "taking factors into account" and "deciding what to do". This thought process seems completely broken to me. The very principle of taking factors into account imply the existence of some purpose.

This is also why Traitorfish's explanation above this is not good enough. I'm contesting that GR/rec is good enough for ethics. He's actually agreeing by saying that GRREC doesn't answer questions but poses them. What this is is a fundamental understanding of what we need from Ethics. I need a way to explain why an action is the right one. I need a process from which I can determine a right action in every circumstance. And when I say process, I mean one that can be defended at every step. At no step can I fall back on "consider it carefully' or 'reason through' or any other Deus Ex Machina of mental activity.

Do you think that ethics would still be such a complex subject if we just had to grab some magical universal formula working for each and every single case with a clear-cut result ?

I'm sorry to say this, but it looks like an extremely simplistic take on ethics from your part. I understand and agree with the idea that you need a general process, but I find simply ridiculous the pretense of having such a convenient "get the formula, make the input, make some number crunching and voilà, perfect answer".

Reciprocity gives you the basic process. The rest of the work is up to you, your ability to think and to apply the idea and to adapt it to actual practice. That's probably where is the problem, you expect something that "does the work for you", while I just tell you : "here is the guideline, but YOU have to understand it, apply it and do the actual work yourself".

So what you want to say is that GRREC is your first principle. It is your first phrasing. In order for it to be a starting point. It has to be the origin of any ethical answer. So if my first principle was "pleasure is good" then anything that can't ultimately be explained from how that choice brought about pleasure is relying on a separate ethical rubric. In other words, your first principle is not your first principle. There is something else that you're appealing to. So if you're saying that GR is the basis of your ethics, you are wrong from what you've said so far.

Uh...
How exactly do you jump from the first part of your paragraph ("the GR is supposed to be your first principle") to the second ("your first principle is not your first principle") ? There is absolutely no link, just one affirmation that is both false and out of the blue.
I don't need any other principle than the reciprocity concept. I just need and intelligent application.

The Second basic requirement for ethical discussion is language. I'll say it again. In order to have any discussion with anyone, you have to agree on the meaning of the words you are using. In order to do this you have to clarify ambiguous words. You have to Explicate. So relying on some background understanding of what a very complex ethical sentence is supposed to mean is, quite simply, anti-intellectual, unfair, lazy and unproductive. I understand that words have contexts. I understand that very well. The issue is that the context of a complex ethical proposition is unclear. It has to be explicated. This is quite frankly absurd to have to defend. It is a basic, basic prerequisite for any intelligent discussion. You can't write a passing paper without realizing this. You can't argue when one side doesn't know what is being argued about. I don't know what you mean by the GR because you've failed to explain it. All you've said is that the GR is your ethical principle. That it is a rough-guideline. And that I should just know what you mean by it.

Here we grow much closer to an understanding. I totally agree that there is lots of "unclear" parts in a discussion, and that the basis of communication is to have common vocabulary so that we can vehiculate concepts and idea in the best way possible.

But I'd like to remind you : the first point of contention was that people were taking the GR very litterally, while it's obvious it's not just that. I can totally accept that you say "it's unclear what you mean exactly with the 'spirit' of the GR", and on this one I can try to answer, but I can not when someone says "hey the GR doesn't work because if I play dumb and pretend it's to be taken litterally, then I can find examples where it doesn't".
Do you see the difference ?
Again : requiring more informations about a concept that is nebulous is acceptable. Pretending not to notice that a sentence is a vague guideline leading to such a nebulous concept and instead treating it on the most litteral level, is not.
THAT is what I called people on, and one of the reason to use the driver joke. I'm not saying that people will automatically understand the GR's implications, I'm saying that if they are showing such intellectual dishonesty as to pretend the GR is just to be taken strictly litterally, there is no way they can ever understand, because they aren't even trying.
Common langage is a prequisite for communication. Willingness to understand is another one, just as fundamental. It's simply impossible to explain a complex concept to someone who just doesn't want to get it. As such, before I can explain anything, I have to make sure the person is willing to walk the walk not just pulling my leg by pretending to not understand.

I hope that the intents are more clear now, even if the exact intricacies of the "expanded ethical system based on the GR" are not.

The metaphor to the driver asking directions is not comparable. Unlike the man with the hat, I have no common-sense reason to understand the scope and motivation for your proposition. Your view on the GR is very esoteric. It is peculiar to you and some few others perchance. I wouldn't say something like: "Quine reduced our ontological commitment to unactualized possibles by translating names into Russelian definite descriptions using complex quantifiers" without explaining to you what that sentence actually means. It is a complex and esoteric sentence that few people could understand no matter how carefully they read and thought about it. They certainly would not understand its significance.

However, you say, "do unto others as you would do unto yourself" is not complicated. Most everyone knows exactly what it means. Yes, you're right, Except the most common-sensical way to understand that sentence is the way I originally did.

Well, on this one I disagree, because it seems to me that the intent is clearly more about some abstract understanding than litteral action. But well, I can accept the idea that you just want some more precise definition - but I can not accept that taking a sentence to its most litteral level is something that is "common-sense", especially in an ethics discussion, sorry.

Hence why the masochist is a counter-example to test the proposition. But no, you said, that's not what the sentence actually means. It means something much more complex in spirit. Okay. So what in bloody hell do you mean?

I don't know what Reciprocity means until it is actually explicated. How does it work, what does it mean, what examples would it apply to, how would I use it are all unanswered questions.

Well... Let's see...

Reciprocity, as its most basic level, start with the fact that it would be a broken reasoning to act on others unlike you would accept them to act on yourself - it's a constatation about double standards.
From then, we have to get the "intent". I don't like having something applied to me. But someone else might dislike something ELSE being applied to him. The important part is not about applying/not applying the exact same thing, but rather applying/not applying things that elicit a similar answer - I like potatoes, some other guy like salad, reciprocity is not just "I should give others potatoes to be nice to them", but rather "I should give other what food they like to be nice to them". I think we can agree that both sentences are relevant to the same overarching concept, but the second is closer to the intent of this concept.
Samely, if someone act badly against me (he tries to kill me for example), then it's justified that I act the same toward him - he pretty much "authorized" others to do this. But then you discover that, in his cultural background, it's actually an honour to be killed in this manner. Hence his intent was to please you. This doesn't mean you have to accept to be killed, but it means that his act is much less evil, because his intent was not to do something non reciprocical.

So you have to take into account the personnal differences (what someone likes is different from what someone else likes) and the different situations and the myriad of factors. It does get pretty complex, of course, but nobody said that ethics are simple

Does this answer sufficiently your question ?

 

[HannibalBarka]

The GR isn't useless, on the contrary ; it's useless ONLY when people do precisely what happens in this thread, by using it in a way completely litteral. But if you use it as it's supposed to be - not just limiting oneself to the plain letter, but getting the spirit - then it's actually extremely efficient and useful.

Contrary to what you think many here are not limiting themselves to the letter . And I did not say the GR is useless, but it is useless sometimes with certain problems. And that is not because I take “literaly”, but really because it does not help

As for the abortion, well, the woman has the highest right on her own body, and the embryo hasn't even developped a brain - hence any ability to think and be - before the second trimester. So I don't see any problem with abortion during the first three monthes.
After that, it becomes quite a bit blurry, because you start to have the right of owning your own body vs the right to live of the fetus, but I still tend to favour the choice of abortion until the fetus has a developped nervous system. After that, I don't support abortion unless there is health risks for the mothers.
But honestly, I don't really see how relevant it is to the main point of the thread.

Well that's because my question was about "how does the GR directs your opinion about Abortion" and not blantly “what is your opinion about Abortion”.
So my question(s) would be (your quotes are in italic):
1. the woman has the highest right on her own body: why in terms of GR? Why? because that's what you want for yourself and therefore you want it for every one? right?

2. right of owning your own body vs the right to live of the fetus
Those “rights” come from the fact that you want to have them for yourself, so you consider that you want them granted to everyone (GR again), right?
3. but I still tend to favour the choice of abortion until the fetus has a developped nervous system:
Why? It looks that in that specific sentence you’re taking a ethic decision without the help of the GR, because you have two conflicting GR (yours with the mom, and yours with the foetus), but you tend towards the one with the mom, why? Is it because you feel closer to the mom? In the GR there is the notion of “other”, and you feel the mom a closer “other” than the foetus”, right?
4. After that, I don't support abortion unless there is health risks for the mothers.
Again how does the GR takes to this conclusion? If it’s not the GR than what it is?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why? It looks that in that specific sentence you’re taking a ethic decision without the help of the GR, because you have two conflicting GR (yours with the mom, and yours with the foetus)

No, before the foetus has a developed Cerebral Cortex, it is impossible to empathize with the foetus, just as it is impossible to empathize with a liver (El Mac's example). There is no conflicting GR.

Only after the foetus has developed a nervous system this becomes a conflict.

4. After that, I don't support abortion unless there is health risks for the mothers.
Again how does the GR takes to this conclusion? If it’s not the GR than what it is?

Because, unless there is a health risk for the mother, the GR simply applies as: do I want to live, would the foetus want to live, would I want pain, would the foetus want pain. Only when those also apply to the mother, again, there is a conflict.

 

[HannibalBarka]

No, before the foetus has a developed Cerebral Cortex, it is impossible to empathize with the foetus, just as it is impossible to empathize with a liver (El Mac's example). There is no conflicting GR.

Only after the foetus has developed a nervous system this becomes a conflict.

no Akka said it's blurry between 3 month and the cortex development.
Since that you get into the conversation, how do you solve two conflicting GRs? you can't use the GR, so you're using some thing else (that you don't really know how to describe), right?

 

[ilduce349]

97% of people don't have the stomach to kill someone. 3% of people will go to jail if they try.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

no Akka said it's blurry between 3 month and the cortex development.
Since that you get into the conversation, how do you solve two conflicting GRs? you can't use the GR, so you're using some thing else (that you don't really know how to describe), right?

Can you tell me of a single ethical system which does not have these conflicts? Read the post Plotinus wrote, hardly anyone can and will use one single system to make his moral decisions.

What 'system' do you use? And what do you use when that system has an inner conflict? And please be ever so accurate in your description, since it's what you desire of us before you are willing to validate the GR, you should at least be able to do so yourself.

 

[HannibalBarka]

No, before the foetus has a developed Cerebral Cortex, it is impossible to empathize with the foetus, just as it is impossible to empathize with a liver (El Mac's example). There is no conflicting GR.

Only after the foetus has developed a nervous system this becomes a conflict.

Because, unless there is a health risk for the mother, the GR simply applies as: do I want to live, would the foetus want to live, would I want pain, would the foetus want pain. Only when those also apply to the mother, again, there is a conflict.

and "Does the mother want this handicaped kid ?" "do I want this handicaped kid?" "Does this handicaped kid want to die?" How is the GR going to rank the importance of those questions for you and allow you to decide?

And if the mother health is at risk, why is her health more important than the foetus life now that you empathize with him (again the question is more how does the GR makes you take this decision)?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Counterquestion, can you direct me to my post where I claim that the GR has an answer for each and every situation?

Do you feel a 'system' needs to have an answer to each and every situation for it to be valid? Can you give an example of such a system?

And if the mother health is at risk, why is her health more important than the foetus life now that you empathize with him (again the question is more how does the GR makes you take this decision)?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the mother's life is more important.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Can you tell me of a single ethical system which does not have these conflicts? Read the post Plotinus wrote, hardly anyone can and will use one single system to make his moral decisions.
.

Many Catholic will tell you "what the pope says" and many Muslims "what's in the Koran".
Well actually I don't know if there is any consistant and universal ethic system, maybe yes maybe no. The fact that yours is not, does not mean everybody's isn't.

What 'system' do you use? And what do you use when that system has an inner conflict? And please be ever so accurate in your description, since it's what you desire of us before you are willing to validate the GR, you should at least be able to do so yourself.

Ziggy, don't be mad at me

I actually share the same kind of reasoning to what you described some posts above: GR when it can help me and "intuition" "experince" "backgroud" "I don't know what" when it can't.
On many ethic issue however I either take a decision without really knowing why (abortion is among them, I actually have the same opinion than Akka, I just don't have an answer to why I choose the mom 's health above the foetus life), and some time I just don't have a clear opinion (guys couple adoption for example).
But I really don't feel always comfortable with that "undecision"

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Many Catholic will tell you "what the pope says" and many Muslims "what's in the Koran".
Well actually I don't know if there is any consistant and universal ethic system, maybe yes maybe no. The fact that yours is not, does not mean everybody's isn't.

"What the pope says" or "what the koran says" is about as informative as "what the GR tells me".

And the reason I think there is no consistant and universal ethic system is not that mine isn't, but the sheer amount of situations it has to take into account.

Ziggy, don't be mad at me

I actually share the same kind of reasoning to what you described some posts above: GR when it can help me and "intuition" "experince" "backgroud" "I don't know what" when it can't.
On many ethic issue however I either take a decision without really knowing why (abortion is among them, I actually have the same opinion than Akka, I just don't have an answer to why I choose the mom 's health above the foetus life), and some time I just don't have a clear opinion (guys couple adoption for example).

I see. Sorry. I read your post as: "Oh yeah! And what about x eh? And what about Y eh?". There has been quite a bit of that going on in this thread. My bad

But I really don't feel always comfortable with that "undecision"

The tough ethical decisions never should feel comfortable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Counterquestion, can you direct me to my post where I claim that the GR has an answer for each and every situation?
Do you feel a 'system' needs to have an answer to each and every situation for it to be valid? Can you give an example of such a system?

Please see my post above. I do think a system like that would be helpful since as I said below, I don't feel comfortable about not having an opinion about some issues (gays adoption for example).

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said the mother's life is more important.

Soory that was not my intention. I maybe made a false deduction. I thought that you were OK for Aborion after cortex development when the mom health is at risk, if that is the case, than it means that you value the mom's life above the foetus, am I wrong?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I said there is a conflict. Which means I'm back in "it depends" country.

 

[Akka]

Contrary to what you think many here are not limiting themselves to the letter . And I did not say the GR is useless, but it is useless sometimes with certain problems. And that is not because I take “literaly”, but really because it does not help

There is plenty of ethical dilemma, but is it because the ethical system is imperfect or because the problems are actually just really difficult to solve ?

Well that's because my question was about "how does the GR directs your opinion about Abortion" and not blantly “what is your opinion about Abortion”.
So my question(s) would be (your quotes are in italic):
1. the woman has the highest right on her own body: why in terms of GR? Why? because that's what you want for yourself and therefore you want it for every one? right?

Very simplistically : because I don't want someone else telling me what to do with my body, so I can't force the woman to do what someone else says with hers.

2. right of owning your own body vs the right to live of the fetus
Those “rights” come from the fact that you want to have them for yourself, so you consider that you want them granted to everyone (GR again), right?

Very simplistically, yes.

3. but I still tend to favour the choice of abortion until the fetus has a developped nervous system:
Why? It looks that in that specific sentence you’re taking a ethic decision without the help of the GR, because you have two conflicting GR (yours with the mom, and yours with the foetus), but you tend towards the one with the mom, why? Is it because you feel closer to the mom? In the GR there is the notion of “other”, and you feel the mom a closer “other” than the foetus”, right?

Something that has no conscience nor feelings, is simply not part of an ethical system except through other persons (that is : a children's toy is by itself completely irrelevant in an ethical's question ; now, if some children is very attached to it, it would be kind of jerkish to destroy it).
An embryo has no nervous system, hence no mind, no conscience and no feelings, so at this step it's only an object, not a being, and its only value is in the eyes of its parents.
A fetus has a very primitive nervous system, and as such I just tend to not give it the same amount of importance as the mother. I just don't think that a fetus is really a full person until the nervous system is nearly fully developped.

4. After that, I don't support abortion unless there is health risks for the mothers.
Again how does the GR takes to this conclusion? If it’s not the GR than what it is?

Very simplistically again : I wouldn't like to be forced to put my health at risk, so I won't require it from her.


Please notice that when I said "very simplistically", I meant it each time. That is, the general principle is here, and explain part of the decision, but it's still a very simplified explanation.
Again, the GR is not a system, it's the SOURCE of the system. I believe in rights, duties and the like. They are, at the fundamental level, derived from the GR, but they are the "refined product" so to say.

 

[Traitorfish]

Again, the GR is not a system, it's the SOURCE of the system. I believe in rights, duties and the like. They are, at the fundamental level, derived from the GR, but they are the "refined product" so to say.

This seems to be where Akka and I differ, and, I think, the source of some of the confusion in this thread, given that we seem to arguing from a similar position. I would say that the Golden Rule is not a system at all, but an expression of reciprocity, which is a principal. Any ethical systems which are built upon that principal may retain the Golden Rule, or some variation of it, as a an expression of itself, but it still ultimately superficial.

And, again, reciprocity is a principle which is adhered to, not a ethical system, as I have said the whole time. One may built systems upon it, and those systems may or may not be capable of dealing with X or Y, but that really says nothing of the principle itself.

 

[Orange Seeds]

Really busy at the moment, so a longer response will come later.

Plotinus' ideas on permissibility are interesting, but I think I'm pretty much an absolutist when it comes to wrong at least.

This is a flaw all moral systems have. They all have grey areas and holes in them.

This is actually true. However, the system with fewer and less consequential holes is preferable. This is why we apply tests.

Can you tell me of a single ethical system which does not have these conflicts? Read the post Plotinus wrote, hardly anyone can and will use one single system to make his moral decisions.

What 'system' do you use? And what do you use when that system has an inner conflict? And please be ever so accurate in your description, since it's what you desire of us before you are willing to validate the GR, you should at least be able to do so yourself.

I did this way back on page 3 or 4, I can't remember. I am what is commonly described as a Kantian deontologist. Although I subscribe to a very specific version of the second categorical imperative.

I agree that hardly anyone uses a coherent ethical system. I also think people do a lot of dumb and harmful things. I also think that things like Laws should be coherent.