tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post8918804940487572004..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: CASE OF A, B AND C v. IRELAND (5)Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-609943598316009282010-12-28T10:21:50.516+11:002010-12-28T10:21:50.516+11:00Sorry - there are very few sites that I look at re...Sorry - there are <i>very</i> few sites that I look at regularly, and I'm not likely to be adding more at the moment.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-30143679091687523542010-12-28T09:51:15.293+11:002010-12-28T09:51:15.293+11:00Will you continue to look at the MandM site?Will you continue to look at the MandM site?Fiona Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-82462050726457426702010-12-28T08:41:52.870+11:002010-12-28T08:41:52.870+11:00Thank you for the run down.Thank you for the run down.Fiona Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-67615884044814880552010-12-27T22:58:45.056+11:002010-12-27T22:58:45.056+11:00Attending a philosophy conference proves nothing. ...Attending a philosophy conference proves nothing. The guy has no real standing in the philosophy discipline at all. That's okay. Arguably I don't have all that much either, but in any event you should stop claiming he has when he hasn't.<br /><br />I don't take you seriously because you've naively used an argument that almost no reputable philosopher takes seriously anymore. The first thing that would happen in an undergraduate philosophy subject looking at this issue would be a dissection of the sanctity of human life argument (as it is often called) to show all its problems. That's why I thought you were being satirical - telling me that I don't understand what argument is being put and then proceeding to wheel out one of the most simplistic, shallow, and notoriously unsuccessful arguments in the whole field of applied ethics! You almost had to be joking. And then the nonsense about them being "little human beings", blah, blah. Zygotes and early embryos are covered by your argument but they certainly don't have fingers or legs (as if that could be the relevant issue).<br /><br />Really, you should go and at least read the relevant books by Michael Tooley and Peter Singer (who actually are leading philosophers).<br /><br />Here's a hint. Your premise 1. is one that no opponent is ever going to accept, and why should anyone accept it? It leads to absurd consequences such as the consequence that there is something wrong with destroying even a zygote. Indeed, taken literally, it even applies to blowing your nose, which destroys multiple cells that are living and genetically human, and therefore "human life" (and are certainly innocent in the sense typically used by proponents of this argument: i.e., they are not soldiers or criminals).<br /><br />You need to find a much more precise premise and then you need to provide an argument as to why I, or any other opponent, should accept it. You haven't even begun to do that. There's no evidence that you've thought beneath the surface of your premise at all. You've gone nowhere near identifying all the difficulties in defining what it really means and how it could possibly be supported ... let alone overcoming them and selling your premise to others who are sceptical.<br /><br />As I say, shallow and superficial.<br /><br />And nor have you even begun to say why such a moral conclusion should be imposed by the coercive power of the state on people who don't accept it. You have not shown any sign of even thinking about whether it is okay for the state to be in the business of enforcing contentious moral claims by means of policemen with guns and locking people up in prison cells.<br /><br />Again, shallow and superficial. <br /><br />And once again, shallowness and superficiality are exactly what I have come to expect from people who argue for the sweeping legal prohibition of abortions. Your comments provide a good example of why.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9799075834691203902010-12-27T20:04:23.581+11:002010-12-27T20:04:23.581+11:00Could you please tell me what is wrong with his ar...Could you please tell me what is wrong with his arguments in that article? He is regurly published in a leading NZ current affairs magazine with a good number of readers. He has also just come back from one of the largest philosophy conferences in the USA.Fiona Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73557495448487195772010-12-27T19:56:23.663+11:002010-12-27T19:56:23.663+11:00(a) It's not so much a matter of not taking yo...(a) It's not so much a matter of not taking you seriously. I genuinely thought that the first comment was <i>probably</i> meant to be a parody. In any event, you are simply making my point for me.<br /><br />(b) You've merely pointed me to someone's blog.<br /><br />(c) The person concerned appears to be - well, let's just say intellectually unimpressive, though I'm tempted to use much stronger language. <br /><br />Once again, the nonsense on his blog makes my point for me. And he is most certainly <i>not</i> a leading philosopher in New Zealand or anywhere else. Don't you think I'd have heard of him if he were a "leading contemporary philosopher"? His bio shows that he is nothing of the sort. Not even remotely.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-85858820330952097122010-12-27T19:07:06.029+11:002010-12-27T19:07:06.029+11:00If you are not going to take me seriously then you...If you are not going to take me seriously then you could at least show enough respect to tell me your opinion on the article I gave you the link to. It is from a leading contempory philosopher.Fiona Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-58065568717946720132010-12-27T18:56:14.093+11:002010-12-27T18:56:14.093+11:00Come on, Fiona, we got the joke the first time. I ...Come on, Fiona, we got the joke the first time. I realise that you're pretending to <i>accept</i> this ridiculously weak and shallow argument, and thus making my point for me.<br /><br />And yes, you're right. Anti-abortion arguments are typically stupid and shallow. There is nothing profound about them. But you don't have to continue in the same vein. We get it.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-7291519472614896202010-12-27T17:57:25.027+11:002010-12-27T17:57:25.027+11:00Who has demolished this argument? I would like to...Who has demolished this argument? I would like to look into it further. Why is it ok to kill something even if it is human?<br /><br />I totally meant the comment about these little human beings having similar body parts to us, it is a proven scientific fact. Have you not seen the photos? They are just like you and me, only smaller and more innocent.<br /><br />The contempory New Zealand philosophy Matt Flannagan presents a very strong case against the killing of unborn children here; http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/01/contra-mundum-confessions-of-an-anti-choice-fanatic.html. I suggest you have a look at that article and if you can still see that abortion is ethically acceptable then I would like you to tell me why. <br /><br />Thank youFiona Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36656228950288444902010-12-26T23:13:20.167+11:002010-12-26T23:13:20.167+11:00Hi, Fiona A - yes, I totally understand that argum...Hi, Fiona A - yes, I totally understand that argument.<br /><br />I know that some people Out There think it's a strong argument, but that's exactly my point. It's a shallow, superficial, glib argument with no credibility. It's been demolished many, many times. There's certainly nothing "profound" about it. E.g., it never goes deeper and examines <i>why</i> it is said to be morally wrong to kill innocent human life, merely as such, even if this life is in a very early, and perhaps even insentient, form. Nor does it examine why such a contentious moral principle should be imposed by law in a supposedly liberal state, where the starting point is that we are all entitled to act on our respective moral principles and that the state has a much narrower range of tasks than identifying and imposing what it considers to be the correct morality.<br /><br />I assume, though, that you are setting out this particular argument to demonstrate just how shallow, etc., it is - yes? You're not, I take it, giving it your own endorsement. Right? At least that was what I gathered from the facetious comment about "little human beings" with "arms, fingers, and legs".Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.com