I no longer consider myself pro-life

[guacamole]

For guacamole and carpe: is moral outrage ever appropriate?

Moral outrage is an appropriate motivator to take moral action. It is not useful as evidence in a meta-ethical argument. There are issues over which otherwise good and decent people once felt moral-outrage, and we would probably agree that the moral outrage was wrongly applied--i.e., mix-raced marriages.

I find this to be especially troubling given the recent explanation by Starlight, which allows for more nuance that are expressed by cries declaiming the wickedness of the opinion.

[Zymologist]

Regarding cognitive function, a couple serious questions:

My little brother has Down Syndrome. Would murdering him be less morally wrong than murdering me (i.e., is his life worth less than mine)?

Say I'm not as intelligent as Bob: is my life worth less than his?

[carpedm9587]

For guacamole and carpe: is moral outrage ever appropriate?

Of course. I express moral outrage on a regular basis - when something truly violates my moral norms. Trump does so daily - and I am not shy about expressing my disgust. It is also what drives me to take action.

But if I am engaged in an argument about why something is immoral, my outrage is not a factor in that argument. It is merely an expression of my disgust at the notion. Disgust is not an argument - it's just a gut reaction.

Edited to add: I just saw/read Guaca's post. He said it better.

[carpedm9587]

Regarding cognitive function, a couple serious questions:

My little brother has Down Syndrome. Would murdering him be less morally wrong than murdering me (i.e., is his life worth less than mine)?

Say I'm not as intelligent as Bob: is my life worth less than his?

I do not measure the value of life on the basis of cognitive ability - so no.

[carpedm9587]

I do not measure the value of life on the basis of cognitive ability - so no.

So you wanted me to reply to "What happens when you treat an entire group of people as disposable cattle? What groups historically have done this and how well did it end last time it was tried?" with "Yes?"

Hmm... now that was silly... wrong post!

[Zymologist]

So you wanted me to reply to "What happens when you treat an entire group of people as disposable cattle? What groups historically have done this and how well did it end last time it was tried?" with "Yes?"

I don't know if this was addressed to me, but my questions were follow-ups from Starlight's premises.

[carpedm9587]

Than just say yes.

So you wanted me to reply to "What happens when you treat an entire group of people as disposable cattle? What groups historically have done this and how well did it end last time it was tried?" with "Yes?"

[Roy]

Am I the only one who bothered to read Starlight's post? He said that killing 1-year-olds was immoral:

So at that age, killing the infant and killing a dog would be similarly immoral.

[Zymologist]

Am I the only one who bothered to read Starlight's post? He said that killing 1-year-olds was immoral:

I read it. That's why I used the phrases "less morally wrong" and "worth less than."

[Zymologist]

Regarding cognitive function, a couple serious questions:

My little brother has Down Syndrome. Would murdering him be less morally wrong than murdering me (i.e., is his life worth less than mine)?

Say I'm not as intelligent as Bob: is my life worth less than his?

Poor Bob, always having to be the example in these weird discussions.

[Cerebrum123]

Am I the only one who bothered to read Starlight's post? He said that killing 1-year-olds was immoral:

He then goes on to say that since we allow people to kill dogs, why don't we allow the killing of similarly intelligent humans. Basically, while he uses the word "immoral" he doesn't show much of an issue with actually killing either.

[lilpixieofterror]

Am I the only one who bothered to read Starlight's post? He said that killing 1-year-olds was immoral:

It seems like it's somewhere around the age of 1 year old. So at that age, killing the infant and killing a dog would be similarly immoral. Since we let dog owners kill their dogs if they wish, would it not also be morally reasonable to let parents kill their infants also if they wished?

Did you?

[Roy]

Poor Bob, always having to be the example in these weird discussions.

At least he has Alice.

[guacamole]

Regarding cognitive function, a couple serious questions:

My little brother has Down Syndrome. Would murdering him be less morally wrong than murdering me (i.e., is his life worth less than mine)?

Say I'm not as intelligent as Bob: is my life worth less than his?

I'd say your lives have equal value. I do not think that cognitive function is necessarily the best standard on which to base the position. There are other factors--i.e., ability to feel pain (but then a painless death is not necessarily a moral one), established position in creation, relative authority to take a given action (and that is not a comprehensive list)--that inform the argument.

We could propose another circumstance:

Two otherwise identical infants: One in a hospital in any American city. One traveling in a car with a terrorist in Afghanistan. Does taking an action which kills the second infant have the same moral weight as killing the first?

fwiw,
guacamole

[One Bad Pig]

It seems like it's somewhere around the age of 1 year old. So at that age, killing the infant and killing a dog would be similarly immoral. Since we let dog owners kill their dogs if they wish, would it not also be morally reasonable to let parents kill their infants also if they wished?

Did you?

That's gotta sting a little.