Re: Politics and morality

Lucien Saumur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ron Peterson wrote:

>> How can humanism show how to solve the problems of society?

> Humanism may help solve the problems of society by better understanding
> the causes of these problems which are fundamentally philosophical in
> nature. Philosophy is mainly concerned with language.

I don't categorize the problems of society as fundamentally 
philosophical because those problems depend on the nature of humans and 
their society. Philosophy deals with the foundations of knowledge and I 
would have to agree that language is a significant part of those 
foundations.

> One of the problem which has haunted our society for a long time is that
> of abortion. Those, who are opposed to abortion, have claimed that the
> unborn is a human being and that, as a consequence, it has a right to
> life and cannot be aborted. Those, who are not opposed to abortion
> (including many 'humanists'), have claimed that the unborn is not yet a
> human being and that it may be aborted. The problem appears insoluble.

I am willing to agree that society doesn't have the right to kill a 
fetus without the consent of the parents of the fetus.

> Then what may humanists do to solve it? They may do so by firstly asking
> why it matters if the unborn is a human being and why do human beings
> have a right to life. Having done so, the humanists will then have to
> deal with a more fundamental question which is "What is a right?" This
> is the question that I have considered in another post and which offers
> a solution to the problem of abortion. I have pointed out that 'rights'
> simply do not exist in the world as independent entities but that they
> are nothing more than the expression of one's power. One does not have a
> right that one cannot defend which the unborn cannot do. Of course, the
> objection that will immediately be expressed is that this would mean
> that many human beings, who cannot defend their right to life, would not
> have such a right. To this argument, the humanists must respond by
> saying categorically that no human being has a right to life because, if
> they had such a right, then no human being would ever die except by his
> own hand. What is closer to the truth is that human beings do not have
> the right to kill other human beings. This is closer to the truth but it
> is not the whole truth. The fact is that some human beings kill other
> human beings. What is more truthful is that human beings do not have the
> right to kill other human beings without risking unpleasant
> consequences. It is important to say 'risking' because some 'get away
> with murder'. And where the 'unpleasant consequences' come from except
> from the state and from the people who fear indiscriminate killing.

I think that rights should only be restrictions on the government. The 
government shouldn't have the right to prevent us from killing other 
human beings, the government can only punish us after the fact.

> Let us now return to the abortion debate. It can be readily seen that
> those who would allow abortion have failed to make any headway in this
> debate because they have unthinkingly agreed with their opponents that
> human beings have a right to life. Once they can respond, as I have, to
> their opponents, then they may point out that it is not the unborn who
> have a right to life but that it is the pro-life people who are claiming
> a right to prevent and to punish abortion. The question then becomes:
> "Why do they do it?" And they can no longer respond that the unborn is a
> human being and therefore that it has a right to life. Nor can they
> respond that they are threatened by abortion since they will never be
> unborn again. They why are they opposed to abortion? They can only
> respond that they either have a feeling of compassion for the unborn
> else that they are obeying the will of God. These are the answers that
> they have avoided until now because the problem has ceased to be about
> abortion but it is now about the existence of God and about the nature
> of his will, if he exists. Then why would God forbid abortion? It can
> only be because of a divine feeling. In the end, opposition to abortion
> is only about a feeling.

Frequently, the slippery slope argument is used by those opposed to 
abortion.

Is it appropriate for society to use incentives to discourage abortion?

-- 
   Ron