3 ms·

I'm an atheist and I think that murder is bad despite not believing in the religious sanctity of life. I'd have trouble with full-term abortions of healthy, via

I'm an atheist and I think that murder is bad despite not believing in the religious sanctity of life. I'd have trouble with full-term abortions of healthy, viable babies. It doesn't seem unreasonable that other people would have a lower comfort limit, again even without religion.

rayiner 4y ago
You don’t think that “comfort limit” has anything to do with Christianity? If you want to see what atheists do when they’re not bound by the cultural hangover of an abrahamic religion, look at population control efforts in Asia. The Chinese correctly observed that, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, there’s no compelling reason to draw the line at birth.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > from a purely utilitarian standpoint, there’s no compelling reason to draw the line at birth. Except there is. You want the same protections applied to you, even if you're unconscious or otherwise unable to protest. Pretty much the only broadly supportable position is that killing a viable person is murder and no more or less supportable than them killing you.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    How does that factor into the utilitarian calculus? Who cares about you? If a stroke reduces you to the same level of mental functioning as a newborn, why shouldn’t society be able to eliminate you as a burden on them?
    - skissane 4y ago
      The Australian philosopher Peter Singer is a preference utilitarian, and has argued that infanticide should be legal, on preference utilitarian grounds. He argues we have to treat the preferences of all beings equally, but newborns have no concept of what it means to continue to live, so can’t possibly have a preference/wish/desire to go on living. Hence, the only moral obstacle to killing them is the wishes of their parents, therefore (painless) infanticide should be legal with parental consent. Personally I find his view to be utterly morally abhorrent, but I have to credit him with the courage and consistency of taking utilitarianism to its logical conclusion.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      > Who cares about you? Me. That's why I want to find a simple set of rules that we can both agree to, where you care about me in trade for similar concern and protection. > If a stroke reduces you to the same level of mental functioning as a newborn Right, I don't consider that viable without some sort of prognosis of recovery but if we go too far down the line of 'burden to society' it starts to include people who drive too slowly in the passing lane and gets more subjective.

rayiner 4y ago

You don’t think that “comfort limit” has anything to do with Christianity? If you want to see what atheists do when they’re not bound by the cultural hangover of an abrahamic religion, look at population control efforts in Asia. The Chinese correctly observed that, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, there’s no compelling reason to draw the line at birth.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> from a purely utilitarian standpoint, there’s no compelling reason to draw the line at birth. Except there is. You want the same protections applied to you, even if you're unconscious or otherwise unable to protest. Pretty much the only broadly supportable position is that killing a viable person is murder and no more or less supportable than them killing you.
- rayiner 4y ago
  How does that factor into the utilitarian calculus? Who cares about you? If a stroke reduces you to the same level of mental functioning as a newborn, why shouldn’t society be able to eliminate you as a burden on them?
  - skissane 4y ago
    The Australian philosopher Peter Singer is a preference utilitarian, and has argued that infanticide should be legal, on preference utilitarian grounds. He argues we have to treat the preferences of all beings equally, but newborns have no concept of what it means to continue to live, so can’t possibly have a preference/wish/desire to go on living. Hence, the only moral obstacle to killing them is the wishes of their parents, therefore (painless) infanticide should be legal with parental consent. Personally I find his view to be utterly morally abhorrent, but I have to credit him with the courage and consistency of taking utilitarianism to its logical conclusion.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    > Who cares about you? Me. That's why I want to find a simple set of rules that we can both agree to, where you care about me in trade for similar concern and protection. > If a stroke reduces you to the same level of mental functioning as a newborn Right, I don't consider that viable without some sort of prognosis of recovery but if we go too far down the line of 'burden to society' it starts to include people who drive too slowly in the passing lane and gets more subjective.