So what do you want to name your clone?Follow

Sure. Social adoption is another facet of the issue, but I'm just looking at the ethical choices themselves. Abortion is a great example of this in action. Most people, myself included, believe that the right of the woman to control her own body is gradually superseded by the right of the developing fetus to live. It's a very reasonable and workable approach. It also ties in nicely with some core operating principles of our own system of laws (the idea that laws should resolve conflicts of competing rights within our society). However, it's shocking the sheer frequency with which someone who merely questions the possibility that some loophole or rule might be in violation with that reasonable middle position is labeled as "religious" and dismissed on that grounds.

I just think it's a terrible methodology to use. Judge the position, not something else you've associated with it. Yes. Lots of religious people oppose elective late term abortion. That does not mean that if I also oppose it that I'm religious, much less that the opposition is wrong. It's quite possible for ethical positions to be derived in the absence of religious belief. In fact, it's the core tenant of secular humanism. Yet it seems like when one attempts to do this the very folks who argue hardest that secularism can derive ethical outcomes will label those who do as religious.

And I find that ironic and self defeating.

In a broad context, true. But I responded directly to Smash's statement with "this is the kind of thing that...". So can we agree that those kinds of statements aren't helpful for anyone who actually wants to embrace the idea that secular humanism can derive equivalent ethical rules without requiring the baggage of religious doctrine? That's all I was saying.



I'll point out again that ethical choices are not inherently religious or secular. The process of deriving them may be, but it's not like we reject the idea that it's wrong to kill people because the bible happens to say so. I guess I'm still struggling to get across the point that we should not make decisions about ethical positions based on the source of those positions, but by looking at the positions themselves.



I think this approach simply avoids the issue entirely. By declaring that religious sources for social norms are always invalid, you determine that you can't therefore judge the social norm proposals deriving via secular means because there's no other choice? This brings us back to my disagreement with the idea that we shouldn't have any ethical concerns about cloning because we've arbitrarily decided those concerns are "religious" in nature. I think we can (and should) assess anything on ethical grounds and not worry ourselves about whether a "side" in this silly religious/secular conflict may be more or less aligned with that outcome. More importantly, I don't think we should be taking ethical positions out of a desire to avoid appearing to agree with a "side" we're not on.


I just think that's a particularly horrible way of making ethical choices for our society.

Edited, May 23rd 2013 10:46am by gbaji

As long as those positions are "Republican," all is well!

Yeah. The disclaimer. Clever *******...



Not in that case. But we do in others. Abortion is a great example of this. Positions are rejected, not because of the positions themselves, but because they're associated with religion by those dismissing them. Are we seriously to believe that the only possible way to arrive at the "life begins at conception" position is if one is religious? Isn't that basically saying the only reason we don't kill fetuses is because god tells us that there's a soul in there? I happen to think there are perfectly reasonable secular ethical reasons in opposition to killing fetuses.



But people often reject opposition to SSM because they associate that opposition with religion. I could give you dozens of examples just from arguments on this forum alone. It's a **** poor method to derive positions, yet it's very common. I'm suggesting that maybe people should wait to criticize someone else for using an irrational justification for their position (like religion) until they've checked to make sure they're not doing the exact same thing.


Edited, May 23rd 2013 11:56am by gbaji

Yes. I believe that many people take a more absolute stance in support of SSM, without looking too closely at the particulars, precisely because it's been framed in a "you either support SSM, or you are a religious zealot who hates gays" way. Anyone not wanting to be so labeled, will support SSM, even when the specific proposals may not be something they'd agree to if it were not framed in that way.


It's the same thing that happens with Global Warming (with perhaps less overt religious connotation though). There are a ton of aspects to that subject. It's a complex issue with lots of moving parts, and many variations in terms of specific effects that are occurring, different causes for those effects, and different proposals to deal with those various things. Yet, it's often simplified down to either being "for" or "against" the whole thing. You either oppose any and everything about global warming, or you support any and everything, including even the most ridiculous proposed political "solutions" to the problem.


That kind of polarization is done deliberately. It's done to force the masses to either adopt a position or be labeled as ignorant, anti-science, etc. But once you've done that, you can use it to get those masses to support any proposal you want. It ceases to be about "is this a reasonable solution to this problem" and becomes "you must accept our solution or you are rejecting the problem". And that's a terrible way to go about doing things.

Why must we always let gbaji ruin these fun-type threads with his brand of "ethics" discussions?

Wait, I just glanced at the previous posts. ANOTHER GAY THREAD! LOCKDOWN!

Edited, May 23rd 2013 10:26pm by Debalic

The most likely scenario is that he used that exact argument in another forum that's more religious and conservative leaning and got called that, and just mixed up which forums did what.

I'd name mine Mazra #3 to keep it simple.

And they all refer to the original as Ahura Mazra.

Hey, remember the plan to raid the E.T. landfill we tossed around last page? Well it's too late, a documentary about the excavation of the landfill is going to be filled with New Mexico's cash fueled blessings.