The Philosophy Of Infanticide

[Quantum Weirdness]

The burning of witches was done with good reason, it was believed at the time, just as was Moses' genocide, slavery and rape of the Midianites. But the universal ethical principles, that are commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, have evolved since then and are best embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What are "universal ethical principles" and how do they evolve?

[Jedidiah]

Tass, we are speaking of the definition of personhood here, and I said nothing about God's law, only that using personhood as a criterion is useless. Human life begins at conception and that is the rational, consistent and scientific standard we should use.

Exactly. The concept of personhood has absolutely no role in science, since personhood has no scientific basis. As I have said before, and received gibberish response, the only role I can see for the concept of personhood is to find ways to place some people outside so their individual rights can be disregarded.

[Tassman]

What are "universal ethical principles" and how do they evolve?

Lawrence Kolberg proposed six stages of moral development, beginning with "avoiding punishment" (the most juvenile or undeveloped level) and continuing to "universal ethical principles" (the most mature level) such as those embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. .

The theist will see the "universal" ethical principles as those grounded in the principles established by their god, and the atheist will see "universal" ethical principles as those commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, and nations.

[Tassman]

Tass, we are speaking of the definition of personhood here, and I said nothing about God's law, only that using personhood as a criterion is useless. Human life begins at conception and that is the rational, consistent and scientific standard we should use.

Oh really! So what were you implying with: "you have no objective way to show that your definition is the correct definition". We do in fact have an obvious criterion, namely that the rights of 'personhood' come into effect when the fetus could survive outside the womb, i.e. when it is viable. this is the most common criterion used in drafting laws regulating abortion.

Exactly. The concept of personhood has absolutely no role in science, since personhood has no scientific basis. As I have said before, and received gibberish response, the only role I can see for the concept of personhood is to find ways to place some people outside so their individual rights can be disregarded.

'Personhood' has no role in religion either...unless you're peddling "ensoulment" theory.

It is a legal concept.

[Tassman]

A newborn infant cannot survive independent of someone taking care of it. What is the difference?

at all.

Also, what if the technology becomes available? Would you then change your position?

hypotheses.

That is only dependent on current technology. That is what the fundamental problem with your criteria.

See above.

So I could kill a brain dead man and that would be ok because he is not "viable"?

The body of the fetus is not the same as the body of the mother.

It is a part of the mother until such time as it is a viable entity in its own right.

[seer]

Oh really! So what were you implying with: "you have no objective way to show that your definition is the correct definition". We do in fact have an obvious criterion, namely that the rights of 'personhood' come into effect when the fetus could survive outside the womb, i.e. when it is viable. this is the most common criterion used in drafting laws regulating abortion.

Yes, but as we have seen that definition of personhood is arbitrary and that it has no more basis than the definition of the authors in the OP.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Lawrence Kolberg proposed six stages of moral development, beginning with "avoiding punishment" (the most juvenile or undeveloped level) and continuing to "universal ethical principles" (the most mature level) such as those embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. .

The theist will see the "universal" ethical principles as those grounded in the principles established by their god, and the atheist will see "universal" ethical principles as those commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, and nations.

Ok. And why ought I follow them?

[Sparko]

The burning of witches was done with good reason, it was believed at the time, just as was Moses' genocide, slavery and rape of the Midianites. But the universal ethical principles, that are commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, have evolved since then and are best embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But what we think now is only for us right? Who are we to judge past societies? So it was not actually wrong for them to burn witches back then was it? In fact, it was moral since that society believed it was.

Just like it was moral for Hitler to gas Jews because that society believed it was moral.

If morals are just a group consensus by various societies, then there are no "universal ethical principals"

[Cow Poke]

Judging by what the UK just did recently to two babies, Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans, they not only support infanticide, but practice it.

Starlight must be proud.

Where is he?

[Tassman]

Ok. And why ought I follow them?

Because we are socialised during out formative years and acculturated by the community in which we live, to behave in a way that is acceptable to that society...whether it be a secular society or a theist society.

[Tassman]

Yes, but as we have seen that definition of personhood is arbitrary and that it has no more basis than the definition of the authors in the OP.

No more arbitrary than the various interpretations of scripture. At least it has the benefit of being based upon a measurable event, namely the development of a functioning brain and the consequent viability of the fetus.

[seer]

No more arbitrary than the various interpretations of scripture. At least it has the benefit of being based upon a measurable event, namely the development of a functioning brain and the consequent viability of the fetus.

So why use this arbitrary definition of personhood in the first place? Why not use the scientific, undeniable, point when human life begins - conception?

[Sparko]

No more arbitrary than the various interpretations of scripture. At least it has the benefit of being based upon a measurable event, namely the development of a functioning brain and the consequent viability of the fetus.

So I guess you are not a person then.

[seer]

So I guess you are not a person then.

ouch...

[element771]

So why use this arbitrary definition of personhood in the first place? Why not use the scientific, undeniable, point when human life begins - conception?

Because adding qualifiers allows one to reframe the issue at hand to fit any narrative they would like.