3 ms·
It's not "largely a question of axioms" and no amount of confidently assert-while-questioning will make it so
by wonnage 4y ago
It's not "largely a question of axioms" and no amount of confidently assert-while-questioning will make it so
- albntomat0 4y agoHow else would you describe the different views of each side regarding the moral worth of a fetus?
- KMag 4y agoPersonhood simply isn't a scientific question. There's no objective scientific criteria for personhood. Maybe it's purely a legal question, but that's a problem given the current makeup of the Supreme Court. If it's not scientific, not legal, and not axiomatic, then what is it?
- jimkleiber 4y agoI'd argue mostly emotional, us projecting our different emotional experiences on each other and wanting them to feel how we feel regarding the same things. I also believe it has scientific and legal and axiomatic components, just feel quite confident it has to do more with the fear, anger, guilt, shame, and other emotions we feel and attach to things.
- KMag 4y agoI'd agree with that, but unfortunately, that makes it even harder for maximalists on either side to communicate.
- jimkleiber 4y agoLol I agree. I think people who take maximalist positions often speak the most distantly about how they feel, using a lot of second or third person pronouns and focusing on how people certainly are and not how they might feel.
- KMag 4y agoPart of that may be that feelings are a very difficult basis for constructive conversation if you disagree strongly. Even if you feel strongly, presenting your position as not emotionally based at least helps move the conversation forward.
- jimkleiber 4y agoI've seen that often when I say how I'm feeling, like actually feeling, and the other person does as well, it can help me feel more connected to them and as a result maybe less connected to the belief/idea/preference I held before the conversation. Not always, sometimes I still feel very adamant about a position and yet I tend to open a bit to their humanity.