I did criticize the opposing viewpoint on the same basis. That you could have made a philosophical rather than biological argument does not alter the fact that you did not do so, nor does it begin to present a philosophical argument itself. As things stand, you have no sound basis from which to continue advancing your claim since I have discredited the validity of the biological argument and you have not rebutted it.

You rebutted my argument, but I would not say you have discredited it. When you consider the terminology used in discussing life, and even death, biological functioning is a defining factor of those two concepts. In the physical world life is characterised by evidence of a capacity for biological processes that distinguish the animate (living organisms) from the inanimate (objects). You criticised me by arguing that the ascription of life was arbitrary, but if these processes are something unanimous amongst humanity, enough that it is reliable to set as an objective standard used to determine the existence of life , then firstly how may it be arbitrary and secondly how may what I averred earlier be termed as invalid?

No, by this I mean that one values what they value because they are disposed to do so according to their genetic inheritance and conditioning environment; in short: evolution. To conclude that this means our values have actual value beyond us, though, is to assume that evolution itself has value which is begging the question once more. The value we place upon evolution due to evolution itself still does not exist beyond us...

Only I do not assume that evolution has value. Actually, when you assess the human experience there are elements that are not solely attributable to a biological process like evolution. The definition of value is the regard for worth and importance; if evolution does not even accord itself value (or anything else), then there is no cause for it to ever determine this would be of benefit to our species to instil it in us. I also don’t see how anything can favour something without cause underlying it, nor how it could not be deliberate since this is what intent is by definition. This would also mean evolution’s favour is accidental which is a contradiction in terms.

The amoral value is nothing more than an expression of the individual will and its preferences..... other interests.

I beg to differ; the assignation of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to an individual’s pursuits is not something I view as subjugation but plain regulation. There is acknowledging that we have natural interests and in turn there is also acknowledging the implications that would ensue if these natural interests were allowed to manifest unbridled. It is a matter of evaluating, particularly through observation, what actions applied to said natural interests provide the best opportunity to enhance the human existence. Thenceforth are we able to deduce what restrictions are appropriate. There is no natural interest a human being possesses that is an inherently negative trait. It gains negative status in the way that it is expressed.

It would be incorrect to suppress an individual against their interest in the consumption of food altogether or in catering to the pleasure instinct for the benefit of promoting good well-being via satisfaction of the key health states. In that sense it would then follow that any action exercised that proves ultimately detrimental to these states and impairs quality of living (not simply for the Self but also for those outside the Self) is not right and it becomes ‘correct’ to steer the natural interest in a way that will not harm the individual. Earlier in our exchange you indicated that you had no particular disapproval of morality but here your tone is markedly negative. This shouldn’t be objectionable to you or anyone because we are privy to the ramifications of a lack of boundaries on a regular basis so it makes sense.

I disagree that we "surpass" any other life form in any way.... there is mounting scientific evidence that contradicts it.

I appreciate we are very dissimilar in that respect. I do not subscribe to the determinist stance for the reason that its account of human behaviour to me is wanting. In asserting that it is solely the result of causation and no other outcome could be generated negates the ability of human beings to navigate their way through their experiences within certain environments instead of being passive organisms who are effectively slaves to their instincts. Otherwise, by that logic, there can be no comparisons drawn between the differing behaviours of various individuals in response to certain environmental stimuli.

For instance, starting from the basic foundation, you may have two individuals whose life course is almost identical: the external setting coupled with their proclivities toward certain traits, but it is not to say that the outcome created through their experiences will parallel, the only reason for this being that the element of choice factors alters the pattern of causation. I do not deny certain variables that confront an individual may largely affect how they progress in their functioning, but that the individual affects and ultimately defines his/herself far more by volition.

Egoism and egotism are not interchangeable; the self interest is not always purely selfish, and may even be largely altruistic depending upon the person and their own evolved disposition. Thousands of years of naturally selected pro-sociality do not magically disappear with the recognition that we are motivated by our individual dispositions (and therefore interests). Moralities have evolved alongside human pro-sociality, and they have thrived because we have tended towards emotion over reason, but there is no reason to think they are necessary to pro-sociality.

Except pro-sociality seems out of step with what egoism is defined as being. I note that self-interest is not an inherently reprehensible interest to have in so far as merely taking care to preserve individual well-being and therefore not fundamentally selfish. At the same time, if egoism advocates individuals to chiefly act in their own self-interest, it raises the question of where altruism would fit since that chiefly concerns the opposite – acting in the interests of those external to the self “selfless”. Unless maybe it could be surmised that egoists may commit altruistic acts due to the satisfaction it brings them individually which would ultimately make it revolve more around personal welfare rather than others’ (ergo not truly altruistic).

Moreover, with respect to morality and pro-sociality, empathy is a central component to their success I believe which would as you suggest lean heavily on emotional impulse. Nevertheless, this does not mean that this is ultimately responsible for its prosperity as opposed to reason if that is what you are saying. Sometimes employing reason proves a better platform from which to exercise moral decisions than emotion as the latter can be potentially more harmful (choosing head over heart effectively). Additionally, removing morality from the pro-social equation seems unfeasible when you consider that pro-sociality’s emphasis on collective benefit (a typically positive characteristic) and rules constructed in the name of fairness are elements that would fall under the moral banner of ‘good’ and ‘right’ practices.

For most individuals, there is considerable and evident intersection between their interests and the interests of others which is more than adequate on its own to induce pro-sociality....actual individual and even collective interests.

Yes, and this is the aspect I was trying to explain in my previous answer: the morality you refer to here which excuses certain behaviours (e.g. the uncooperative) is the kind that is insular; it does not allow something like altruism a place in its boundary setting at all and it shows in the destructive behaviour that ensues. Indeed, societies have been brought to ruin because their leaders governed them in a way that catered to their own personal interests without consideration for how their rules would affect those around them and under their charge. There is nothing pro-social about that – it then becomes immoral.

The existence of amoralists does not prove anything except that they exist. There is natural variation within the species, particularly great where morality is concerned, and so you have no cause to assume that amoralism is discordant with rather than in line with and deriving from the instinctual disposition of the amoralist. That moral systems prevail indicates only that they have been evolutionarily advantageous above those alternatives which did previously exist in previous environments...

Well if their prevalence indicates greater advantage than the alternatives then it corroborates what I have been saying about the importance of morality. That said, if amoralism does become more prevalent as the years pass, I doubt it’ll be in the way you claim. You say it could become more advantageous but advantageous for whom? Evaluating what you’ve explained to me about the amoralist philosophy (if I have understood correctly)it would include every individual catering to their biological instincts unimpeded by any particular moral framework which would have colossal ramifications for our species (as well as others considering our status in the world).

In a society under an amoral system, therein will exist people who will act upon their interest to harm others via varied methods. There would also be individuals who may not necessarily possess the inclination toward destructive behaviour against their environment (and so technically do not pose a threat to others) but nonetheless do toward themselves. For instance, assuaging the natural interest of pleasure to no end by engaging in substances or habits that are deleterious to the human form; in that sense there is still a quandary created. A moral system also introduces elements such as moderation and clarity for its adherents in a way that amoral systems do not since the former accounts for the consequences of certain activities whilst the latter does not.

As regards your hypothetical supposition of objective morality, I cannot give you a precise answer. If I became convinced of the probable existence of such an objective morality, my response would be predicated upon the exact nature and its relationship to my other core philosophies as well as basic dispositions I cannot reliably predict. I would not rule out the possibility that it would influence my behavioral instincts, but I cannot say with any certainty that it would either.

Well if this is the requirement then it appears that it would have some effect because you would be taking something you know to exist as fact (objective) and use it as a foundation to frame your understanding of yourself (incl. dispositions), how you experience things and defining your philosophies. These are the elements that serve one’s identity – in relation to the objective. If we assume that everything is a matter of subjectivity then there is no firm ground to determine who we are and what things are and instead this is measured against a cacophony of perspectives which is implausible and results in disarray.

There are two critical differences between our arguments that you are overlooking. Firstly, I do not assume as you do that an objective basis confers upon a subjective thing any objective state of existence. Secondly, the origin I credit is supported by both reason and scientific evidence whereas neither can be said for God.

The origin that you credit is supported by neither, but everything we observe, from the construct of the environment to the behaviour of human beings is more indicative of a Creator. Something so complex and ordered cannot be derived from an arbitrary notion but from genius, and as human beings we see this replicated through the way we ourselves organize our existence.

I also do not understand how you can reconcile relative morality with your belief in God as the origin of morality. Why would God make morality relative? Moreover, is morality/value is not universal then how can you advance your argument against legal abortion?

That is because I don't. God did not make morality relative; that was the work of human beings. The standards were set by Him in the beginning in order that we would be able to obtain the best out of our created form and existence. What gives the impression of morality being a relative concept is when people abuse their raw interests by neglecting to refine them and mold their values fit around that. The trouble here however is a lack of discipline which potentially means that individual avoids accounting for certain behaviours that prove destructive and at times at the expense of others – thus marking the birth of immorality (this is sometimes explicit or veiled in so-called profession of morality). Harmony becomes diluted with the increase in varying moral systems and this is what produces societal conflict.

When it comes to abortion, there are certain principles that human beings generally hold dear and life is one of them. Across the world’s justice systems the deliberate termination of life is a punishable act and considered wrong, which is why subjects like abortion are so contentious; because suddenly the unacceptable becomes acceptable and frail justifications are made in a way they would not be if the scenario revolved around a calculated murder (though the end result remains the same).

Correct. Are you?

No. That is what informed my Christian philosophy.

The only truly immutable instincts we inherit from natural selection are the drives for survival and reproduction, and even these are generalities rather than inherencies. Everything else is subservient to those primary instincts, and continues to be selected for only so long as it continues to the best among available alternatives at serving those needs. While we cannot say that we have evolved out of cognition, we must certainly say that we evolved into it which was as equally unprecedented....

Whilst I concur that the drives for survival and reproduction are principal, the notion of non-cognition is one that seems unfeasible. Human beings would be compelled by their natural instincts to reproduce, yes but survival is another thing entirely. To ensure survival would require the existence of cognition from the offset since cognition is responsible for mental abilities such as knowledge, reasoning and comprehension; skills that would need to be enlisted in going about that process.

Your explanation does seem to highlight a disparity between the evolution of human beings and animals. If evolution selected for human beings to develop higher cognition in line with serving the original survival instinct, it does raise the question of why the same could not be attributed to animals who also possess those same drives: why must ours be so much more advanced? If anything it underscores my point regarding the superior status of human beings in the world; otherwise it would follow that other species would have experienced the very same.

As for any changes in human cognition, I presume that is a reflection of how we have adapted to environmental changes that would call for certain cognitive aspects to be used in a different way. source

More or less. I view the moral interest rather as I view the amoral interest, which is to say I like it when the interests of the other align with mine and I dislike and oppose it when they do not. In this regard, I am like most people I think. I suppose, though, that I would usually prefer to deal with the contrary moralist over the contrary amoralist; to be forward and inadvertently a bit rude, I find most moralists easier to manipulate when I need to do so. Again, I rather doubt this makes me quite so unusual as it might seem on face; moral argument is about manipulation too when you get right down to it.

I guess the ease of manipulation would come via appealing to their moral compass, something inapplicable to amoralists, perhaps? I agree, you are not quite so unusual in that regard, although in my opinion true morality does not concern using others or turning a scenario involving others to one’s own advantage which is what manipulation is and would encompass insidious means which would produce a lack of fairness. With due respect, and I do not mean to single you out especially here, but manipulative behaviour from an amoralist or moralist is something more commonly associated with immorality than morality but I see how it would not be so to you and merely be consistent with your egoism.

Its objective existence is still unfounded. When someone hallucinates another person who does not exist we would not say that imaginary person exists objectively simply because the hallucination has an objective origin.

No we would not, however if others are able to witness the same vision it does offer some verification. The same can be said the conduct of any experiment; anything that appears unable to be replicated or confirmed on a large scale does not constitute validity and it can be dismissed. The essence of distinguishing right from wrong is not an oddity amongst human beings with a lone individual practicing the concept, but rather it is found amongst the majority, meaning it cannot be baseless.

If life is truly an inviolable right, then it seems you should oppose the legality of people driving at or above any velocity which could kill someone which is roughly 20mph, depending upon what you consider significant. (P.24) Otherwise you would be placing the "right" or ability to drive more quickly over life itself. My point is merely to demonstrate that we tacitly accept that life is not an inviolable or ultimately supreme right at all, through numerous little exceptions like this that we hardly if ever even think about.

Yes I see; a valid point to raise. I would oppose the legality of anyone driving at a velocity that is demonstrated to most likely singularly occasion death if applied; however I am conscious that certain speed limits vary according to road type varies. Incidentally as your link touches on death becomes more probable beyond 20mph for pedestrians which is why Britain is striving for 20mph as the average limit in built up areas where pedestrians are likely to frequent. Meanwhile, such fatalities are less likely to occur on a motorway hence why the limit is higher and if they do occur it is less down to speeding.

p.23-4

That your claims are counterclaims to a preceding clam does not alter the fact that they are still claims, and that you therefore have a burden of proof for them within the context of debate. Had you limited your commentary strictly to challenging the logical or factual integrity of the pro-abortion claim without making any claims of your own then your case might stand, but you did not in fact do that. Your position is also tenuous here since I myself have not advocated the pro-abortion stance you referenced, which makes it rather irrelevant to our own discussion where your claims are the original claims.

You disputed my original claims and I tailored my responses accordingly in challenging your own. Nevertheless I confess I am rather used to debating this subject with opponents who actually are advocating the opposite side. Since you have critiqued that as well however, and considering your philosophy, I can only surmise that you have no particular opinion on abortion itself and/or assuming the role of devil’s advocate out of curiosity?

That there are usually negative effects is irrelevant to the point at hand insofar as those effects clearly do not outweigh the benefits, or they would not be tolerated and abortion would not exist. There is also absolutely no reason to assume that the support of birth over abortion must arise from a view of the fetus as living, since it can easily be attributed to the more basic and general bias for reproduction and/or imaginative projection of lost future potential of the fetus had it matured to become a living human.

That is neither here nor there: many things are sanctioned in spite of how greatly negative effects may outweigh positive effects, particularly if there is a perceived gain for powers that be. Fast food and alcohol are examples of a negative imbalance and we are regularly bombarded with the resulting ramifications yet still they are tolerated and stand no chance of being outlawed. The case is coming from the perspective that the fetus, would have the potential for development just as they would if they existed outside the womb, something which would only occur if they were a life. If the fetus’ composition did not meet these requirements, then it could not be distinguished from inorganic matter; yet it does.

How does any of that follow? If anything, prohibition of abortion is the exception to nature rather than the rule. Our species has practiced abortion as long as it has existed and the practice exists in other species as well, so we know that it has an evolutionary origin. Not that an evolutionary (or any other) origin renders either stance objective.

How can the termination of our own species be a rule of nature? In which case we should barely exist. It would also call into question the credence of evolution as the origin of this practice. You mentioned earlier that it had equipped us with the survival and reproductive drives via natural selection and following this every other characteristic we possess is subservient to this and intended to perpetuate the species; ergo what reason would there be to select something that seeks to discontinue these drives?

Abortion is not a natural evolutionary process for human beings. Abortion is the consequence of human beings attuning their internal trait of cognition to external variables (milieu) in the form of reasoning and then acting upon it – as is the case with every other decision they make in their lives. This is something that even rules in the world of research when studies are under analysis: the question of whether the end result would be the same if certain alterations to the set-up were made, and when it comes to abortion it is a near identical question.

I think I may have mentioned already, but I am a rather hard-line epistemological nihilist so the existence of life as well as the universe are both rather heavily qualified for me as simply being more probably objectively true than not. Life especially so, since in many ways it is a very vague concept that could mean any number of things depending upon personal philosophy (to bring us back to my very earlier comments at top earlier and throughout our debate), which you seem rather to have conceded unless I have missed a counterargument somewhere.

Yes, you have made your philosophy clear, though it is not one I have come across often. It presents as a rather clinical outlook and I wonder what led you to arrive at such a conclusion. This is especially because in spite of your consistent references to evolution to support your stance you appear to reject all principles as being subjective (or having very limited scope for objectivity). Does it concern you at all that your beliefs preclude you from feeling a sense of certainty and moreover security about anything? You technically could not even feel certain that nihilism is at all valid as a philosophy and how may evolution be worth serious consideration in your eyes, particularly as you do not consider it to be necessarily objective?

That a thing exists or even lives does not necessarily confer upon it any right or other entitlement to exist or live. This is a presumption you still have not proved probable.

According to evolution perhaps not, since as you stated earlier it does not itself have any value and would follow that it would have no sense of right or entitlement. It has nothing in that respect to confer upon us….yet still here we are, a species with those very senses and the only species with those at that, so much so that we will instinctively fight to ensure our individual survival. In this regard evolution has selected an attribute that it does not even have and is entirely unnecessary for human beings for no apparent reason. The only explanation for us to as a species feel any sense of entitlement to exist or value or morality is for it to have been embedded in our construct via consideration which would fall in line with Creation.

Also, perception of a thing does not require the thing to objectively exist. It probably requires an origin, but as has already been explained above that is not the same thing. Also, I thought you were not defending universality but now you seem to be... which is it?

I am defending morality as it was instituted: a concept designed by God to be unique to human beings with set standards in place. The deviation of moral values amongst different societies produces the illusion of a relative morality but this does not change the origin. To clarify, morality in its true form is universal because we generally have a sense of what is right and what is wrong; any absence of this is a decision made by that individual to not allow it to preside over their behaviour. What makes something correct is when we are able to see evidence of its positive effects when practiced and negative effects when it is not. When human beings’ desire to fully succumb to their natural instincts is greater than the desire to modulate them, morality becomes redefined to fit this modulation.

I apologise that our debate is somewhat protracted due to my delayed responses. Found myself to be very busy lately and it takes a while to write these (not that I mind!)

I just don't see how people don't consider a fetus a human. It's a developmental stage.

If something is growing, it is living. If you stop it from growing, you have killed it.