I don't know how you can read the Deceleration of Independence or the Constitution without thinking these are egoist ideas. In both of them, they outline individual rights: moral codes to protect the individual against the majority (e.g. "Freedom of speech": even if there's massive outcry from every single person in the country, the individual is still legally allowed to speak) The assertion "the individual should not be subject to the will of the majority" is egoism/individualism.



Yes they are. Capitalism is the economic theory based around egoism and individualism: an individual's body (and all property) belongs to the individual to use how they see fit; to use their best judgment to decide the best course of action for their lives. Statism is based on collectivism: an individual is not allowed to own property; similarly, an individual's body does not belong to them and instead, belongs to the the government to dispose of it in any way they see fit e.g. using an individual's body to fight in a war they don't agree with (the draft), forcibly taking an individual's money without their permission (taxes), forcing an individual to remain pregnant so they can make babies (outlawing abortion)

To outlaw abortion is to say an individual's body does not belong to the individual, but it belongs to the state to use it in any way they see fit. This is statism, which is anti-capitalism: the two ideas are diametrically opposed.



Rights can only be violated through force: since you're saying that rights can violate rights, are you not also saying that you have the right to initiate force on other people? If so, then that's statism.

You can try to context-drop all you want, but the fact still remains: outlawing abortion is statism.



Are you even reading what I'm saying? I never said a fetus was potential life. I said it was a potential baby. A "fetus" is not a "baby". A baby is one that's born. To treat a potential baby (a fetus) like a real baby (one that's born) the same way, despite the fact that they're metaphysically different, is insanity and detached from reality. It's like treating an acorn like an oak tree.



Abortion does not involve sacrificing anything to anyone, since there is no right to live as a parasite (of course, if you think rights can violate rights, then I guess you could somehow conceive of the right to live as a parasite; that would alse be statism). Forcing someone to remain pregnant is using an individual as a means to an end, so that is immoral.



Your view can be boiled down to "living things have rights, because we're nice and we don't want things to suffer needlessly" (why exactly should we stop things from suffering?). This is subjective and arbitrary (and by corollary, irrational and shouldn't be entertained). Just because we're nice, it does not follow that other things should have rights. It also doesn't explain why we have rights as living things. It relies on the premise that reality exists in your mind and that we decide what's the best way to treat others, as opposed to nature deciding what's the best way to treat others. (I'm not even going to go into what constitutes "we"; because this would be arbitrary). This is subjectivism, which says reality, good and bad exist only to what people decide it is and that reality is malleable. The opposite of this is objectivism which holds that reality exists independent of your mind, and it's up to humans to observe it and draw conclusions from the real world: reality is firm and absolute.

Objectivism holds that no one decides what's good or bad, it just is and that it needs to be observed. Subjectivism holds that people decide what good, bad, and reality are.

Now, let's apply these two theories in a social context. Objectivism seems to mesh nicely with capitalism (objective free-market, objective government). What fits with subjectivism? Oh yeah, STATISM (government DECIDES what's good and what's bad).

I guess it's easy enough to say that the objectvist theory is incomplete, since if I accuse the subjectivist theory of being incomplete; you can simply say "well, I decide then how I can complete it".



It doesn't matter; it's congruent with reality. This view doesn't rely on arbitrary statements like "we should try to stop suffering, therefore, we create moral codes". My view is dependent on nature, which is the real world.



Wait, what?

Did I say that it's right to "underpay" workers? All I said is that the government has no place regulating economics.

What do you mean by "underpay?" Do you mean "pay below minimum wage?" If so, I've already explained how minimum wage is arbitrary and as humans, we need to reject the arbitrary. Or, did you mean "pay below what is objectively defined by supply and demand?" If so, it would not be in a business' self-interest to do that. In a proper free market, corporations compete for labor. To underpay your workers would mean to lose business.

In either case, the government has no right to intervene if no physical force is being involved. That's all I said. Now who's the one with the scarecrow arguments?



This implies an act of force. There's a difference between treating people as a means to an end and a mutually beneficial and voluntary trade between two parties. It also suggests that the employer-employee relationship is viewing other people as a means to a end. Please stop with your scarecrows.



A redundancy in terms.



To understand why it's bad, you must first understand that "altruism" is not a synonym for "kindness". "Kindness" is helping people because you can and it's enjoyable. "Altruism" is the tenet that actions are only moral if they benefit someone else. For example, altruism says that it's morally wrong to feed yourself if there are other people that are starving. Altruism says that you do not have a right to exist if you don't give money to hobos.

This is why "ethical egoism" is a redundancy.



Metaphysically (and physically, in a sense), they are complete separate entities. This is the key difference here.

A focus on individual rights is not exclusive to egoism. Some ideals are bound to overlap, but your assertion that these are purely egoist ideals does not hold.



And yet that’s basically how the country they formed was governed, by the will of the majority. Indeed, it was the will of the majority that gave rise to the revolution to begin with.



Some things we have a moral right to claim as our property, some things we do not. That is why your rationale that something is either capitalist or statist fails. It does not take into account that there are some things we simply should not be able to own. Corporations, for instance, should not be able to patent the method for creating certain kinds of organisms, medicine, etc. They have the legal right to do so, but not a moral one.



Incorrect. It is to say we simply do not have the right to terminate a developing human being. The reason this logic is flawed is because it ignores the basic fact that there are two lives involved, not just one.



Again I say, we all have rights, we all have things we deserve to have in order to survive. In a world of limited resources, we cannot all get the things we need, which is why we must learn to share them (willingly, not forced, in terms of the way it should be). Rights can and do infringe on other rights.



And now it is my turn to ask if you’re reading what I’m saying. The stage of development in the case of a human being is irrelevant in deciding whether or not we have a right to kill it when it otherwise would not die.



It involves sacrificing the developing human being to achieve whatever end is desired. Existence as a parasite is irrelevant, since it is a mandatory condition of every human being’s survival. Terminating a developing human life is what is immoral.



Doesn’t matter whether or not we’re nice. We are only one form of life on this planet, and we need the other forms of life to do what they do just as much as they need us to use them responsibly. Otherwise, everything deteriorates, and everything comes to a very bad end. What makes us so special that we get to dictate what does and does not have rights?



See my earlier posts where I explained that quite clearly.



No no you’re thinking of your view of rights. That only humans have them, and we can do whatever we want, claim whatever we want, only as long as we don’t step on another human’s toes.



Which you are content to ignore and replace.



A viewpoint that I see heavily interwoven into egoism, at least as you describe it.



And my views in this case are objectivist. Our ability to reason should dictate our boundaries on what we can and cannot do, what we should and should not do, to other living things, based on the undeniable fact that we are reliant on everything around us to survive, and if we misuse our resources, we are going to pay dearly for it. It’s not something that doesn’t apply to someone who chooses not to concern themselves with it, because as long as they live on Earth, it is going to concern them whether they want it to or not.



Agreed. And the conclusion ethical egoism draws from this is not factual.



Government decides what is and is not harmful to the general population. This is not subjectivist, it is not “deciding” what is and is not moral, it is following the morality that you and I agree already exists, to keep people safe, and controlled by the will of the people. I realize this does not often happen in the real world, but the same can be said for the ideal capitalism. It is important to note that in this situation, we are discussing the way things should be. I see a mixed system where government and business respect each other’s boundaries as the scenario that is likely to do the least amount of damage.



I didn’t say that. I said your view of rights based on it are incomplete.



It isn’t. To say that only rational human beings have rights because rational beings say so is subjectivist.



And when these types of situations arise it proves the necessity of a government who’s objective is to protect the well-being of the people from corporations and the like who would take advantage of their desperate situations.



I mean pay them insufficiently to survive in their environment, and relative to what the goods they produce are being sold for. Taking advantage of another government’s failure to establish laws and regulations to protect their workers to exploit desperate situations and limited employment opportunities to further their own agenda while harming the people who live there.



Still you. You continually defended a corporations right to do the things I mentioned earlier on. I have no exaggerated in saying this, it is simply what happened.



It does not imply an act of force. You can use people without being forceful upon them. If you manipulate someone into doing something for you by means of deception or by taking advantage of their desperate situations, then that is treating them as a means to an end without directly using force.



And the situation these people are in is not beneficial at all, and only voluntary in the sense that they submit to the best option they have, which is to be taken advantage of. This is why your views are incomplete, they only cover extremes, which real life situations don’t often deal in.



Which in some cases does happen.



Altruism is selflessness, and kindness arises from that. Why must I understand something that is not true?



Kindness is selflessness. You don’t have to enjoy doing something for someone else in order for it to be kind.



An extreme view of altruism. Ethical egoism can be taken to similar extremes.



But that’s just it, in terms of the basic right to live, there’s not really a difference at all. Life is life, death is death. We are always going to be dependent on the world around us in order to survive, the only thing that changes as we grow is the means by which we obtain those things.

Just a quick question. Does this include contraceptive actions such as condoms or so-called "morning after" pills? These are interventions that will kill what would otherwise not die.

True, and I'm not sure how I feel about that yet. I think we may have already had this discussion.

Wait, wait a second here, are you guys actually trying to debate each other into a common agreement of what should die and what shouldn't? In the end what the hell is stoping you from it, religion and personal belief of course.

Common, that's up to your religion and personal beliefs. If you believe abortion should be illegal and have it as a law now, move to Canada. If you believe it's a freedom move to the Netherlands. If you believe in inequal rights between men and women move to Iraq etc, etc.

There's some countries that have canibalism a freedom, it seems right to them and only wrong to us due to our culture and common maanners, it's not up to you to decide for them. In the end everyone in the world has a chance to move to the place where they can agree with the culture the most... unless they are born in a country where the culture consists of not allowing citizens to move out, that just sucks... lol

Anyways:
This isn't a topic to agree on. This isn't science.

Can we agree on this philosophy though? (Partially, of course I am aware of universal moralities but abortion isn't one of them)

If you're aware of universal moralities then you shoudn't have to question why we're having this discussion. What you're talking about crosses over into subjectivism and potentially moral relativism. Not a viewpoint I could see myself subscribing to. I could not, for example, agree that cannibalism is morally right for certain groups of people simply because they think it's right. But that's an entierly different discussion altogether.

To the point that you would try to invade that country and change their culture? Then you are not respecting their culture. A little sad to hear personally but that is the problem somce cultures believe they have the right to attack other cultures because theirs is superior and "more right"... I mean no offense but I don't agree with you on that, sorry. I'm out of this thread.

What are you talking about?

Sorry, here is the proper Beginning of my text:

You do not agree on cannibalism as a cultural right... (To the point that...)

...yeah 'cause that's the part that confused me, not the fact that you asked me a question then responded as if I had already answered.

You answered it here: I could not, for example, agree that cannibalism is morally right for certain groups of people simply because they think it's right.

That basically means to me that you don't respect their rights and that belief led and will lead to a history of wars like the Aztecs vs Europeans because neither believed the opponent was living right. (Aztecs with slavery, sacrifice, Europeans with Christianity), or no?

Then you've jumped to the wrong conclusion. All I say is that were I to be asked whether or not I think cannibalism could be a moral action for cultural reasons, I would say "no". Anything you draw from that is going to be an assumption, and in this case they were incorrect assumptions.

It's a woman's body, not yours, you have no control over what she can and can't do with her own body.

It's as simple as that.

A frequently used argument that ignores the fact that a second human life is involved. It's a question of whether or not the medical procedure goes too far (it's not like an abortion is something just anyone can do), and whether or not it should be funded by taxpayer dollars. Whether or not it's ethical or moral to conduct a medical procedure that terminates a developing human life, whether or not we have the moral right to interfere with natural growth to that extent. There's nothing simple about this issue no matter which side of it you're on.

For one thing, in the United States, it's illegal for tax money to be used for abortions. For the other thing, "second human life" is a bit vague at that point and arbitrarily assigned.

Other than the simple freedom and rights answer which should be used here,
I guess I can add a reminder.

We do kill billions of lives every day without even noticing it by spraying pesticides, slaughtering cattle...

We have a fucked up morality system, where humans are the only things we shouldn't kill unless it's war... All this aside, we make a big deal out of one person dying but a statistic out of a million people dying.

What's your problem, morality? Could it be very primitive? Could it be, it shouldn't exist.

Ha, I know this is crazy talk to you but that's because your morality tells you so.

Does intelligence conflict with morality? Another question.

Could it be, without morality humans would be much better as the smart thing is not to kill each other anyway.

I wasn't going to post this, ThatSmartGuy, but you've forced me into it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

This debate has mostly been about the way things should be vs. the way things are. The fact that tax money cannot fund it right now (a policy that has many opponents who are gaining ground) serves as a jumping off point for a discussion, not as a valid reason as to why it should not be discussed.



See my earlier posts where I elaborate on the issue.



Living things have always needed to survive off of each other, and always will. We obtain nutrients indirectly from photosynthesis, whether it's by eating plants that have conducted it, or eating animals who have eaten those plants. This fact is irrelevant to abortion.



Centuries of philosophical discussion disagree with you.



A view that is in and of itself a type of morality. Why is it smarter for us to not kill each other? Even if your answer is "Because we could get caught", that's an ethical egoist type of view. If it's because the person in question is doing something important, then it's still morality because you care about something like that at all. Basically, your argument contradicts itself.

It's smarter to not kill each other because, doing so, will eventually doom our species. However, the death of potential members of the species (sperm, embryos, fetuses) will not doom our species because the vast majority of such A) Already die naturally, B) Even with abortion, the birth rate is going up and C) Even if the birth rate goes down, we'll eventually stabilize.

If you don't like abortion, there is a great tool available to squelch a lot of it: Education. Also, stop with this "sex is immoral" crap. Sex is a healthy part of the human race. On TV, you can show horrific death and destruction but show a boobie and you'll pay! How stupid is this? I can turn on a TV any weeknight and see dead bodies galore but not a single schlong. What is this? Why is sex worse than murder?

Which is something we care about because of morality. Like I said, the argument contradicts itself.



So you're suggesting that education will numb us to the fact that abortion is the process of terminating a developing human being. That's kind of the opposite of what an education does.



Who here said sex is immoral?