Objectively speaking...

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 24, 2007 12:24 pm--> (Jazzratt @ January 24, 2007 12:24 pm)it is in the interest of humans as a species to keep as many alive as possible.[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:24 pm
The problem with this subjectivist and moral view is that it assumes that there is nothing objectivley beneficial to humanity or indeed an objective measure of such things, I do not find this to be true.


[email protected] 24, 2007 12:24 pm
It follows then, that if something is objectivley 'better' (more beneficial) than there must be something objectivley 'worse' - and we should only do what is better

Obectively speaking, abortion results in fewer people. Objectively, fewer people is bad for humans as a species. Objectively speaking, Jazzratt should be anti-choice.

Discuss.

[razboz]

This sounds like some idiotic Jazzrat - T_wolves feud but here i go anyway.

I agree with Jazzratt that reduction of species is "objectively" a bad thing (if your not misquoting him anyway). This does not mean that Jazzratt is anti-choice. Indeed anything that works towards the maximisation of general well being (ive only ever heard this concept in Frnch maximisation du bonheur general) also tends towards the well being of the species.

Therefor something which causes happiness or at least limits greif, and which does this more than it causes harm is necessarily good for the species, seeing as an increase in general well being is the logical exention of this.

Thereofr life is not universally beneficial for humainity. If it impedes the well being of others it can be a hindrance. Foeteses, no t being full human beings with full human being rights,needs or criteria for well being count less than fully born humans. thus a drastic decrease in the well being of a Foetus (death) is not necessarily equivalent to a decrease in humanities well being.

This is porbably a bit confused but thats how i present my argument, saying that Jazzratt's stance on life does not entail a certain stance on abortion.

[apathy maybe]

I don't care if you're a troll or not, your good at it and your funny. And you create discussion on interesting and different topics, I hope you don't get banned.


On topic: At face value you could make that argument, however, it is clear that there are other issues that are relevant. Abortion can result in fewer deaths (such as when proceeding with the pregnancy would result in the death of the mother and child/ren). Having fewer children means few people who need healthcare, meaning that people who need healthcare can (potentially) get a better standard then if there were more people.
I am sure that there are other arguments that could be made along these lines.

Note: Personally I don't think we should be trying to maximise the human population or population growth. In fact I think that such an attitude is short sighted and likely to cause problems. But I'm an evil environmentalist, what would I know? (Please note also that I am not saying that Jazzratt things we should try to maximise human population or growth.)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:03 pm
Obectively speaking, abortion results in fewer people. Objectively, fewer people is bad for humans as a species. Objectively speaking, Jazzratt should be anti-choice.

Discuss.
First quote mother fucker, read it - try to comprehend it.

"it is in the interest of humans as a species to keep as many alive as possible."

"...keep as many alive as possible"

This does not obligate us to create more humans, it does not obligate us to keep paracitical lumps of cells alive in the womb.

Will you fuck off now, mouth breather?

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 24, 2007 04:03 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 24, 2007 04:03 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:24 pm
it is in the interest of humans as a species to keep as many alive as possible.


Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:24 pm
The problem with this subjectivist and moral view is that it assumes that there is nothing objectivley beneficial to humanity or indeed an objective measure of such things, I do not find this to be true.


[email protected] 24, 2007 12:24 pm
It follows then, that if something is objectivley 'better' (more beneficial) than there must be something objectivley 'worse' - and we should only do what is better

Obectively speaking, abortion results in fewer people. Objectively, fewer people is bad for humans as a species. Objectively speaking, Jazzratt should be anti-choice.

Discuss. [/b]
dude...

i've been seeing you here for years now... will you ever give up ?

u made like a 100 topics.. when will you realize we are done talking ?

[wtfm8lol]

u made like a 100 topics.. when will you realize we are done talking ?

He will probably realize you're done talking just as soon as you really are done talking, and your comrades obviously aren't considering that there are several responses before yours.

[t_wolves_fan]

Nevermind.

:huh:

[colonelguppy]

i don't see how its necessarilly beneficial for us to keep as many of us alive as possible, or atleast how the benefits are great enough to warrant the steps to do so.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by ApathyMaybe+--> (ApathyMaybe)I don't care if you're a troll or not, your good at it and your funny. And you create discussion on interesting and different topics, I hope you don't get banned.[/b]

I'm sure glad that, because communists have no power at all, I'm here for entertainment purposes only.



On topic: At face value you could make that argument, however, it is clear that there are other issues that are relevant. Abortion can result in fewer deaths (such as when proceeding with the pregnancy would result in the death of the mother and child/ren).

True, but:


Having fewer children means few people who need healthcare, meaning that people who need healthcare can (potentially) get a better standard then if there were more people.

Here is the deal.

You are saying, "abortion = fewer people = less health care resources required", which would seem to be correct, objectively. Or at least has logic.

Jazzratt is saying, "keeping more people alive [once born] = beneficial to humanity". This also has a supporting logic.

There is a disconnect here. Health care resources are used only to keep people alive after they’re born, so you cannot simultaneously make these two claims:

A>It is objectively good to limit the number of born people because then you’ll use fewer resources on them.

B>We need to maximize the number of born people who live because it’s objectively good for humanity.

The reason being of course is that to keep born people alive, you need to use more medical resources (along with everything else).

Now, disallowing any moral claims (as Jazzratt claims above, morality does not exist), we need to essentially consider humanity in terms of numbers and numbers alone. Conserving medical resources can be done in other ways besides allowing abortion. We can let the sick and the weak die. After all, objectively, they will require more medical resources but will not provide as much benefit to society. Their existence will be a net negative, objectively (mathematically), to society. Hence, if Jazzratt is running the planet and she follows her rule that what is objectively positive must always be followed, then the sick and weak must be allowed to perish.

Now, let us look at Jazzratt’s claim. This is important because as we learned in the religion forum, she is always objectively correct and anyone who disagreed has to be corrected. So let’s assume that she is right and we need more born people to live. Objectively, a good way to assure that more born people live is to, well, give birth to more people, is it not? That’s called playing the percentages. This is especially the case if Serpent is correct that the population of some areas is dropping due to low birth rates, and lo and behold he is correct.

But Jazzratt is opposed to a requirement that once conceived, a possibly born-human be preserved. Why do you suppose that is? I am going to hazard a guess: for all of her talk of rejecting subjective values, there is a value she holds that would put the ability to control her reproductive system regardless of society’s objective need for more born people.

There is another consideration: what about people who do not procreate? Objectively, they are not working to ensure humanity’s continuation if they do not produce offspring, do they? Objectively, perhaps we should ban say, any behaviors that do not eventually lead to having children? One cannot think of any subjective values that anyone may have against that, can one?

We needn’t limit this question to abortion.

Let’s take cigarettes, drugs, alcohol or unhealthy foods. Again, Jazzratt from above:


Jazzratt
It follows then, that if something is objectivley 'better' (more beneficial) than there must be something objectivley 'worse' - and we should only do what is better

There is, of course, irrefutable evidence that smoking and unhealthy foods are objectively bad for society. With these you get emphysema, lung cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cirrhosis of the liver, wasted time while high or intoxicated, health problems, mental problems, addiction, overdoses, and so on. They all take a toll on society and diminish productivity and require additional use of health care resources and are therefore objectively bad. Therefore, if Jazzratt is running the planet and she follows her rule that what is objectively positive must always be followed, then drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and unhealthy food must be banned.

Wait there’s more. How about sex? Sexually-transmitted diseases cost an indescribable amount of damage – objectively – to society. Less born people survive, more medical resources are used up. Again, if we are bound to do that which is objectively positive, it seems we must ban casual sex.

Remember, any complaints with these policies ignore the objective benefits and are therefore merely manifestations of silly subjective moral values which clearly have no place in society.

Right?

[Demogorgon]

Objectively speaking leaving the world with unwanted babies probably isn't good for the human race

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:04 am
Objectively speaking leaving the world with unwanted babies probably isn't good for the human race
I've been told that babies would be raised communally, hence no unwanted babies.

So when the commune objectively needs workers, the required children will be raised all the same.

:ph34r:

You also left out sex, booze, cigarettes, and drugs.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:06 am
You also left out sex, booze, cigarettes, and drugs.
Well nobody is perfect. Which funnily enough leads to the answer to your point.

Would we be healthier without booze and drugs and the like? Well yes (though I don't doubt we would find something else to hurt ourselves with) but life would be more boring then. Is being bored good for the human race?!

Seriously, if we are going to do this in a strict utilitarian way like you want us to, the disastrous consequences of banning these things (wasn't prohibition a great success?) is often worse than the damage these things do in the first place.

[MrDoom]

I'm sure glad that, because communists have no power at all, I'm here for entertainment purposes only.

Aha, but you forget one crucial fact.


Originally posted by Mao Tse-Tung+--> (Mao Tse-Tung)Political power grows out of the barrell of a gun.[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
One man with a gun can control one hundred without one.


Stalin
Ideas are more dangerous than weapons. We would not allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?

We hold the gun in this forum. :angry:

:lol:

[wtfm8lol]

Well nobody is perfect.

Speak for yourself, asshole.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:14 am
Seriously, if we are going to do this in a strict utilitarian way like you want us to, the disastrous consequences of banning these things (wasn't prohibition a great success?) is often worse than the damage these things do in the first place.
I'm not the one advocating the strict utilitarian, objective view. Please see the opening post.

You seem to be suggesting that sometimes we people want subjective things that make little or no sense objectively.

I would tend to agree.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:54 am
I'm here for entertainment purposes only.



what are you? some kind of clown? but yeah..you entertaint us with your stupid thread like this one.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:36 pm
You seem to be suggesting that sometimes we people want subjective things that make little or no sense objectively.

We do indeed. And of course trying to stop us tends to do more damage than just lettin us have them.

[ichneumon]

as far as i can tell, the whole "overpopulation is a myth" bit is a part of the greens-are-stupid dogma. it doesn't seem to be rational.

1)greenies are dumb
2)greenies believe overpopulation is a problem
3)believing that overpopulation is a problem is dumb

honestly, twf, while i don't always agree with your politics, you are rational. but i think you're wasting your time with this one.

[greymatter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:36 pm
You seem to be suggesting that sometimes we people want subjective things that make little or no sense objectively.

I would tend to agree.
Subjective desires alone do not warrant the prohibition of abortion. Perhaps, if someone could provide objective reasons why abortion has negative consequences that might warrant it's prohibition.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:25 pm

Subjective desires alone do not warrant the prohibition of abortion. Perhaps, if someone could provide objective reasons why abortion has negative consequences that might warrant it's prohibition.
Read the first post, sparky.

I am not the one making the case that objectively we need to keep as many peopel alive as possible.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I don't see that we need to keep as many alive as possible. I don't think our population numbers matter much until they seriously affect employment, or until we don't have the resources to sustain ourselves. If we as humans were probably going to die out, then I could agree. At the moment, we're pretty comfortable.

-Alex