In My Memory

I personally find the desire to preserve a copy of ones self for years in the future as an interesting reason to favor cloning. Obviously, the clone wouldnt be a replacement for the person she was cloned from, but the sentiment is suprisingly close to the non-profit motivations that a person might have when writing an autobiography. My sister and I are so dissimilar that you probably wouldnt know we were twins. (My guess is that it must be because we were never dressed alike as children.)

Skye I think one of the benefits of having a bipartisan system is the fact that minor parties, such as the Constitution and White Knights party, have a habit of being extremist. In some sense, its beneficial to give as little representation to extremists as possible. Too much overrepresentation of minor parties is harmful to the internal "checks and balances" system that is present in the very nature of a bipartisan system. I would guess the utilitarian argument is something along the lines of having the greatest amount of representation for the greatest number of people, or something to that effect. Phi for All And we keep re-electing these people because they are the best of the best

He's not dead yet! But he's really kicking and screaming to stay alive, according to the Washington Post - GOP Pushes Rule Change to Protect DeLay's Post: Does anyone remember when that gay marriage ban posed unintended consequences (such as disqualifying unmarried heterosexual couples from domestic abuse)? I think this action is just another case of speedy legislation, and by the time the consequences come to bite the Repubs in the back, the damage will irreparable. I dont think its a smart move for the Repubs to kick the ethics committee to the curb - they are simply digging their own grave. What did Mr. DeLay do by the way? Apparently, something very unethical: Oh my, that is unethical. The WSJ has slit DeLay's throat, but they didnt pour gasoline all over DeLay to prepare for his own fall in a fiery ball of shame - DeLay did that himself. Apparently, Richard Hastings is in place to take Tom DeLay's position when he retires. I cant say I'm truly relieved with that news.

(This thread will probably be of most interest to USians.) I am like most Americans: I find voting to be very frustrating - the Dems hardly stand for anything at all in recent times (its almost as if they exist for the sole purpose of opposing the Republicans), and the Republicans are deeply unethical. Both parties are so inconsistent that I cannot persuade myself to vote for them at all. But, like all the others, I cant help but vote for them because in the grand scheme of things, I could either chose to vote for the "lesser of two evils" or for nothing at all. If I may be permitted to paint with a wide brush, I find most people do not vote for third parties, but those who tend to vote Libertarian are often academics and intellectuals, Green Party voters are suprisingly rational (despite pop-culture stereotypes) and sympathetic to the underappreciated needs of the environment. I like these two particular parties because they have a complete, consistent, and dedicated platform which they can compare to competing parties (as opposed to many of the other third parties which are either single-issue oriented, such as the Prohibition and Pot Party, merely excuses for theocracy, such as the Constitution Party, or otherwise desperately out of the mainstream interests of Americans). I have considered voting for a third party (either the Greens if they ever have a candidate to run, or the Libertarians). On one hand, I suppose there is some intrinsically worth in voting for a third party for the sake of letting my opinion be heard, but on the other hand its no secret that a vote for a third party is essentially throwing your vote away. If were possible to simply vote for the lobbyists, I'm sure we all would, but until then, we are stuck with our political parties. Any thoughts?

I have heard of "Turing Machines", but unfortunately when I've tried to read what are, I cannot make sense of what the language and concepts are supposed to represent. At the very best, the descriptions of a Turing Machine I've come across only allow me to visualize an extremely complicated abacus as the closest thing representation of the basic function of a Turing Machine, but I suspect that such a visualization isnt terribly accurate. I have heard that the ability to build and use a Turing Machine has many scientific applications and philosophical implications, so naturally I am very interested to find out what they are, but I have yet to find a good resource that can explain what these machines are, what they do, how they process data, etc. in language and terms that make sense to a laymen individual. Apparently these machines have something to do with processing information in much the same way as a computer can - I know how to make my computer do the things I want it to do, but I lack the relevant knowledge to be able to explain exactly what the processes going on at the 1s and 0s level is doing or even means. As a consequence, Wikipedia's article and similar articles on Turing Machines featuring charts of binary data sets and comparisons to a computer's "stack" do not have any meaning to me. Thanks in advance for any information that can help me make sense of the obscure underlying principles behind Turing Machines

I would only support affirmative action programs if it can be shown that there is some level of active discrimination (whether conscious or unconscious) against certain groups being practiced by businesses or schools. The most persuasive argument I can find against affirmative action is that its unnecessary, such as if it hasnt been shown that any groups are being actively discrimated against. However, for the most part, some of the arguments against affirmative action arent very persuasive, such as the one that keeps coming up that affirmative action is nothing more than racism. The reason why the racism of 50 years ago was bad was the due to the way it caused people to suffer and become victimized, and how it was fueled by intolerance and bigotry to exclude certain groups from the full rights of all citizens - I dont really think the reasons why racism was bad really carry over to affirmative action. I thinks only the fact that some types of affirmative action distinguish between racial groups is where the similiarities between affirmative action and racism really begin (and end).

Douglas, There is an article called Judicial Activism Reconsidered which I think you would find very interesting. It is an incredibly long article, but a definition of "judicial activism" is found in this quote:

The most minimalistic meaning of the word conservatism basically amounts to "preservation of the status-quo, keeping things the way they are, submitting to change only in moderation". Conservatism actually has a very rich philosophical history, tracing itself back to the political theories of Burke (and possibly back to English philosopher Hooker), who's reaction of the French Revolution caused him to become skeptical of social changes that occurred too quickly. In the past, conservatism valued strong political institutions (not unlike the doctrines of Hume or monarchies), as a result there have been some very far right ideologies (though arguably not characteristic of conservatism) such as faschism, authoritariansim, elitism, totalitarianism, etc. In the philosophical context, conservatism derives from a few central doctrines: * Continuuous tradition - which basically amounts to the maintenance of political institutions, and skepticism toward large sudden change (and especially against violent revolutionary change). There is a common analogy that change should be approached slowly and gradually, as in the same way that one would approach walking on ice. Continuuous traditon is valued in a way that would make Hobbes applaud, that if it werent for strong traditions and values then men would be at each other's throats. * Value traditionalism based on intellectual pursuit rather than emotional pursuit - a fair amount of skepticism toward political institutions generally encourages that changes made to any political system be done by experienced educated authorities in the most prudent fashion possible. * Skepticism and Pessimism - the idea that there is no universal human nature, that the needs and desires of individuals will differ. It also argues that there really is no "ultimate" way in which government should be run (i.e. there is no literal theory of government, as theorizing about government cannot be attained in the same way as theorizing about the natural sciences). So, thats the basic explanation of why conservatism call themselves conservatism. Unfortunately, very little of that kind of conservative doctine remains in the way that the word is used today. Notice the values bulleted above, it becomes obvious that conservatism is essentially a political attitude rather than an actual theory of government. Today's "conservatism" has much less to do with actual preservation of historical tradition, and much much more to do with some of the political doctrine behind anti-Federalism and State's rights. I'm not sure when conservatism became associated with free-market capitalism. However conservative ideals such as having a strong well-devoloped military are actually a fairly recent invention. In fact, if you look back in history, the pre-1964 Democrats were the ones who valued strong military and interventionalist foreign policies. As a result of divided attitude with the Vietnam War, the Democratic party reformed drastically, and adopted more Federalist attitudes and backed the Civil Rights movment - as a consequence the formerly solidly Democratic southern states shifted firmly to modern meaning behind conservatism. Since the 1980s, the word conservatism has adopted a few values behind theocratism after Falwell and Robertson formed the Christian Coalition. In a technical sense, the Christian Coalition's theocratism is "right-wing", but its reactionary attitudes toward sexual morality and agressively interventionalist campaigns against the operations of government have next to nothing in common with conservatism at all. Reagon's contribution to conservatism was tying it together with supply-side economics. Modern conservatism has very little to do with its philosophical roots. The reason is simply due to the fact that many modern political candidates run under the label of conservatism, however what they stand for is something that cannot be considered conservatism (or liberalism) at all. The reason why the word "conservativism" isnt outdated is because American politicians have transformed the word "tradition" into a catch-all justification for most modern conservative beliefs. In my experience, common opposition to issues such as homosexuality are defended with "homosexuality is impulsive, and hence as a conservative I oppose homosexuality", being anti-abortion is defended with "the traditional end to sexual relationship is children, and hence as a conservative I oppose abortion", etc. I find these justifications to be a completely disingenous use of the word conservatism. Today, being a conservative has much more to do with adhering to a label than the actual philosophy behind the label. (To be fair, modern liberalism has little to do with its philosophical roots either.)

I dont know whether Schiavo is conscious or has the capacity to feel pain. In the case that she does feel pain, I would consider it profoundly immoral to remove her feeding tube. From an ethical point of view, I think it would be much less unethical to euthanize Schiavo using anesthetics or some kind of pain killer. That kind of death is painless and untraumatic, and I think that kind of compromise would satisfy most people who believe she is in a vegetative state and the others who believe she is self-aware.

Mokele, Dave I think the large-scale deception that first had me worried was learning that the toppling of Saddam's statue was staged: The most upsetting part isnt that they staged it, but they managed to upset the Iraqi people in assuring them that we werent there to occupy the country, followed shortly by draping an American flag over the statue. (You'd think the Department of Army Propaganda ought to pay attention to detail.) Unfortunately, I dont know of any watchdog groups who keep track of stories like this or the NYTimes article. My biggest worry is that some of these news stations have a great deal of political influence, but are too willing to allow their ethics to be bought and sold. I was always taught to think of the large media outlets as a "free marketplace of ideas", and try to imagine to all the news networks competing and acting as watchdogs of one another in order to provide the most fair, free, and objective market. Nowadays, news can be broken down into 90 second infotainment slices, and all the hottest political topics can be summed up in whatever non-thinking catchphrase of the day, then our news and politics has about the same quality we expect in fast food. I just hope that whatever rate news is being fabricated, that it doesnt lead to certain groups becoming disenfranchised. But hope isnt lost, I still prefer to get my news about the US from non-US providers. Pangloss,

So, our media outlets are really beginning to reflect our Ministry Of Truth. Perhaps its best to sit back and enjoy a glass of Victory Gin, and try not to think about it at all. The Party will do all our thinking for us.

Mokele, Oh my! A quick recap of what you've just said: first rights come from ability to dominate others without resistence, but then morals are rationalizations for our instincts. I dont know if you've noticed the contradiction, but morality is implicitly relevant to whether something has rights (i.e. if it is immoral to cause gratutious suffering, then no person has a right to cause things to suffer, and all things have a negative right not to suffer). At least one of your statements is false. Here is a little information you might find useful: Power isnt equivelant to rights in the way you think it is. Power-rights are defined as "A has a power-right to x with regard to B, if A may render B liable to some status connected with x (a policeman obtains a power-right to enter my home, when he gets a warrant)" (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy). These types of rights are most specifically related to social contracts and legal rights. The word "rights" is wide and varied, having implications from individual rights, moral rights, legal rights, societal rights, civil rights, contractarian obligations, moral duties, etc. I could probably give a lecture all about the nature of rights, but at the moment I have neither the time nor the will to really explain the foundations of morality and the nature of rights - a topic with no shortage of literature available -, I'll limit what I have to say to simply "your concept of rights is simply wrong".

Mokele, Better yet, why hasnt the government set aside "rainy day" fund to invest. It seems as Bush's SS reform is based on investing existing money in the stock market, it would be logical to set aside a small rainy day investment fund to collect a 2 - 3% return as a way of digging the way out of the deficit hole. I would take someone very knowledgable in economics to explain how realistic the idea is, but at face value (assuming the most optimistic conditions) it seems to make sense.

I get from your post that the dividing line between extremists and reasonable people seems to be as follows: * Extremists dont support the war in Iraq * Reasonable people do Most people can probably see that is a strange way to define extremism. I personally like to think of extremists as being fundamentalists - as essentially non-thinking ideologues who support their beliefs based on ideology rather than merit.

Sayonara Thank you for your reply, it has been very helpful. I wouldnt say non-quantifyable, I would probably say something along the lines of "indirect" (possibly in the same way as evidence for neutrinos). That is where any EEG evidence has its relevance - unless there have been advances into measuring private experiences of others that I'm not aware of. Analogously, I would amount this indirect evidence to be similar to the machines that monitor whether a patient is drifting in or out of states of arousal while under anesthetic. Cows, to me, dont seem like stimulus-response machines. Some of their behavior seems to be better explained as necessitating abilities for mental representation or internal processing. Certain behaviors imply self-awareness, such as distress accompanied by self-preservation - although avoiding suicidal tendencies is pre-programmed into animals, the survival tendency in cows (or even humans) isnt an unconscious or involuntary behavior, the distress is a measurable mental state that is essentially feedback between the cows deduced consequences of its circumstances and awareness of itself (it is also noted the distress is not a conditioned reaction). The cow could never experience distress if it did not possess both characteristics of being aware of its environment and being aware of itself, which is one of the quintessential differences between an insect preserving its own existence and a cow preserving its own existence. (That is probably the most grammatically complicated paragraphs I've written in a very long time, please let me know if I need to clarify.) To the best of my knowledge, that description avoids anthropomorphism, or at worst its a very very weak form of anthropomorphism that has its roots in functionalism. This type of functionalism is compatible with Occams Razor in the same way that we use animal brains to make more sense of human brains (such as how brains store memory), not at all comparable to the type of anthropomorphism that lurks behind the statement "my cows dont like Rush Limbaugh". The things the non-tech people called "computer stuff", philosophy of nature and mind, and biblical exegesis - not very physical career choices, but very mentally demanding on my part. I have no expertise in anything that would be relevant to this thread (unless the thread suddenly devolved into a discussion of computer science and bible exegesis). Despite my academically unremarkable resume, I like to become engaged in threads like these because they are interesting and they are always a learning experience. I do have a little armchair experience with ethology, a little more than an "intro to psychology 101" in the study of human behavior, and lots of experience into the philosophical implications of animal sentience if that means anything. Because I am in a tough spot with my current employment (very competitive, pay is less than ideal, and too little contact with people), I am currently in the process of trying to earn a degree in what I generalize as "a more 'serious' scientific endeavor" - perhaps I'll dedicate myself to the study of animal awareness. But enough about me... Stubborness I suppose That is very honorable, and I appreciate it I think largely, the argument against pushing the behavior of animals against the behavioristic fence is based on versatile behavior - I dont know what the word is supposed to be (some variation of operant conditioning, I think), but its basically the phenomenon that explains how children acquire language on basic stimulus-response-reinforcement principles, but then break through the boundaries of stimulus-response-reinforcement by stringing together complicated and coherent sentences that they've never heard before according to specific grammatical rules. In animals, versatile behavior comes in the form of lion prides sending off a hidden lion to ambush an animal as the others chase the prey in the hidden lions direction. You can rearrange that scenario with the the hypothetical cow and hypothetical tractor to show the cow is engaging in mental activity that involves acquiring and organizing information about its surroundings, and to act upon that information according. If you postulate the cow has a choice between running off a cliff or running into a clear pasture, the cow will run to the pasture everytime (and this is regardless of whether its the first time or 100th time). The indication being, even if most behavior is unconscious, the cow engages in some level of decision making (perhaps this means it is being driven motivated to run away from its stimulus also has a sense of its own mortality) and therefore avoids the cliff. There is at least some indication that there is some sifting through the outcomes of certain situations and internal processing rather than being the mindless repition of a certain set of reactions. Its not the most sophisticated example imaginable, but it gets the job done until I'm more awake to think of a better one. I can think of certain situations that seem to be an irrational waste of energy - playfulness being the most immediate example. Where animals engaging in play wastes enormous amounts energy, the animals usually dont need much improvement for muscular and physical functions. It has a more beneficial purpose of developing an animal mentally by increasing its adaptibility, inventiveness, versatility, flexibility, etc. Lots of studies on rats show that keeping a rat physically stimulated (by giving it something new to play with everyday) has obvious mental benefits like improved memory. At least in that sense, thinking about animal behavior isnt so pressed against the behavioristic fence. I would consider sleeping to be one of the most irrational "stay alive" behaviors for an animal to engage in, in fact shutting off most of your awareness to your surroundings for several hours at a time (as opposed to merely laying about) is probably a very good way to get eaten. Sleeping doesnt seem to have any adaptive advantage at all - except for things which are conscious throughout the day, in which sleeping is a necessary behavior to maintain some level of conscious awareness about the world without going crazy. Short bursts of brain activity in the visual and auditory regions of the brain indicate that cows and most mammals can even dream while asleep. If the animal werent conscious, then sleep behavior would be unnecessary (and even detrimental) - I assume the cost/benefit of consciousness (sleeping vs. energy conservation vs. some level of awareness and reacting to environment) all compete with one another, with consciousness having the most beneficial selective advantage above non-conscious alternatives. I dont think I am. At least not intentionally. Ah, well the refraining from murder of humans has a lot of different interpretations. I can think of lots of justications for not taking human lives, including contractarian interpretations (sophisticated, but not credible in the philosophical sense), sacred life justifications (these usually involve double-talk, and arent worth much), divine command (the first problem being the questionable axiom of some type of deity existing in the first place, the second problem being an application of Euthrypo's dilemma, the third problem being that divine command carry no more prescriptive force than my own commands), etc. I still prefer the interests/suffering point of view. By the way, Sayonara, your posts have been lovely, and very intellectually stimulating But having exhausted basically everything that I know about animals, and being very tired, I must be getting my sleep now. All the best, In My Memory

Sayonara, If you take a cow, and try to push it off a cliff, it doesnt want to go. It shows physical distress, and anxiety which can be measured by an EEG or similar machine. (Assuming cows can judge depth, of course.) The cow can deduce the consequences of future events, its mental states will be affected and its interests will be modeled with respect to those consequences. In this case, the mental states (distress and anxiety) are evidence that the cow has a sense of self, and an interest to continue its existence. Even if it isnt clear that the cow has a distinct preference for continued existence, it has other preferences which would require continued existence to be satisfied. Scattered all throughout my posts are phrases like "seems to", "perhaps", "possibly", "can be described" etc. Its just my very cautious way of writing posts. (Besides, it would be inappropriate for me to use absolutist buzzwords like "without a shadow of a doubt", "irrefutably", or "definitely".) You've redefined my typically cautious way of writing things to be a subjective unjustified personal reaction - it isnt. Everything I've said is valid inference and scientifically meritable, and to the best of my ability is completely objective. I dont expect for you to read my mind and guess my intentions, but please dont dismiss what I have to say based on my cautious use of language. "You seem to believe..." Actually, recognition of other mental states is an enormously relevant concept. It shows that some animals have a theory of mind, and they have the ability to discern "those parts belong to that animal, these parts belong to me" (that is the literal definition of self-awareness). Taking in the behavior of other animals is very common behavior of social awareness. We usually think of monkeys as a prime example of social animals, but cows are surprisingly social animals, they will form life-long friendships, they have preferences, they can be vain. Social interactions like these tell you what an animal thinks about other animals and their intentions (this is literally "thinking about thought"), they tell you that animals have some capacity to engage in ritualization and determination that is inadequately explained conditioning or instinct, its one of the best indicators of non-human awareness available. Based on the behavior, of course. The bonds mother cows form with their calfs is on a non-mechanical and personal level. We know this because the behavior of the cow becomes less vigorous when the calf dies or is removed. The same kind of behavior is sometimes seen in monkeys who lose their young, or elephants who mourn over bones. An excerpt from The Secret Life of Cows shows the real complexity behind cow/calf bonding: The excerpt uses fluffy language, while its not meant to be a technical manual it makes a interesting psychological exercise. Cows have the faculties in the brain that allow them to "feel" (a limbic system in particular), and there are some situations where they show physical signs in internal sensations. In the evolutionary sense, this would be valuable, because consciousness has a lot of "stay-alive" benefit in an unpredictable environment for animals with long life spans and reproduction cycles. Childish? No, no, no, you've misread me entirely. Here is what happened: The definition of "ethical" you gave was inadequate, then you described that it implies ethical systems are "subjective" almost by definition. But that isnt correct, in fact it is a very common misconception that has not the least bit of connection with how "ethical" is understood in the academic sense. However, in your post I've quoted, you indicate below that you dont actually hold that definition of ethics to be meaningful - in which case I've misread your intent. If you want a superior way to define "ethical", I would suggest something along the lines of "in accordance to the conclusions derived from ethics; whereas ethics is the investigation into the content of moral principles and virtues, and their justification". Which I provided. However, you wanted to know how we can even assume cows are self-aware in the first place. Its not the same question as "how is it unethical to kill a cow", and usually I would consider it red herring - however I figured that you might be genuinely interested in hearing what I have to say, because you've noticed that the moral status of a cow is dependent on certain properties like consciousness and self-awareness. Thank you, I had misunderstood you. I read your post as originally declaring ethical judgements as necessarily subjective. I can agree with that. There certainly are. Their capacity to suffer and hold interests is the objective fact which defines their moral worth - however you've no longer been concerened with the moral implications of awareness, you are focused on whether cows possess some kind of sense of self-awareness. Hopefully, by now, we are on the same level with one another. If not, feel free to ignore anything in this post, and let me know

Sayonara Not wanting to shift the burden of proof, but what would prove to you that cows or other animals are self-aware? For me, it doesnt seem terribly far-fetched. They have a sophisticated mammalian brain allowing them to carry about certain cognitive abilities, the brain is physiologically very similar to a human brain - it doesnt seem that self-awareness should be a uniquely human experience. However, similarity doesnt really mean much to skeptics - what really matters is how we connect behavior and other observable characteristics with conscious experience. I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not sure how this is done in much detail, but I think a few experiments I can find seem to do this fairly well: From The Guardian - Do animals think?: I rather think the pig example is a better indicator of non-human self-awareness, it seems that knowledge of other animals mental states is a byproduct of self-awareness. At least it doesnt seem like the pig is operating on autopilot or responding in mechanical ways, and the behavior seems to be distinguished from merely being reflexive or conditioned. A highly recommended read I've come across is Consciousness in Animals and People with Autism (see also another article of interest, Thinking the way animals do from the same author). The article is too extensive to quote in detail, but needless to say it includes lots of experiments that seem to indicate that animals can recognize their own unique existence, perform reasoned problem solving, relate present experience with memories, etc. A quick excerpt: I've found an abudance of information on monkeys, dolphins, and pigs, but I have come across little that talks about cows specifically (maybe they are just more boring animals to study than chimpanzees and pigs?), although I would think that cows are reasonably intelligent enough to imagine their own existence through time. All things being equal, its less unethical to kill something painlessly than to torture it beforehand. However, dont let the idea that killing something painlessly shoots down its ethical implications. For instance, take the reasons you might consider shooting someone in the back to be unethical (assuming that you do, of course) - it is functionally no different than killing a cow before it knows what hit it. Largely, what we have to go by is the interests of an individual. There isnt an "experience requirement" necessary to make an action wrong (for instance, slandering another individual is wrong even if that individual never finds out - the reason being that the individual has a interest in retaining his or her image). Cows seem to have a conscious interest in the preservation of their own existence. I dont have specific cow example, but I did notice a pig example that Syntax posted on this board: Were the pigs conditioned to be afraid of the noise or were they genuinely interested in their own continued existence? What does Syntax think? Aside of whatever information I can find from others, what I already know about cows seems to tell me that they arent animals too "dumb" to understand their own existence. For instance, a mother dairy cow forms a complex bond with its baby cow (maybe this can be easier to relate if we compare it to the way horses bond with their young), and their interest in the continued existence of their infant cow seems to be conscious to some extent (it might be hardwired to care for its young, but by no means is it behavior acted out like a pre-programmed automaton). So, the cow seems capable of imagining the experiences and existence of other animals and modifying its behavior accordingly, why shouldnt it be aware of own existence? To this extent, cows appear to be more conscious than very young humans (for the first few years, toddlers live in their "egocentric" phase where they are incapable of imagining what things look like from the perspective of other individuals). And, of course, a bit of anecdotal evidence: People who I've known that have own pet cows describe it as a lot like owning a dog, not at all like owning an ant farm. I have a little expertise in the area of philosophy, ethics in particular. I mean this only in the strictest and most professional sense, but what you've just defined as "ethical" and how you described it is naive. What you have described has less to do with actual ethical decisions, and more to do with the practicality of customs (such as whether it is appropriate to take your shoes off before entering a neighbors house - these kinds of things arent ethical decisions, at least not in the same sense as explaining whether lying under oath is acceptable). As popular as what "subjectivism" or "relativism" or the "what you believe may not be what I believe" thinking is nowadays, its wrong. Moral facts are simply true or false, and not dependent on the individual or culture. This isnt the same thing as saying that all cultures should be treated the same, it means that what some cultures or customs believe are morally correct may in fact be very very wrong. As an example, some native American tribes used to sacrifice infants by burning them alive, and they believed this was a moral and ethical thing to do - but they were wrong. And it isnt that such behavior would be considered wrong today - they were wrong in the time they were performed, wrong in any time they would be performed in the future, and wrong in all the times in between. The reason why ethical decisions arent committed to purely subjective matters of opinion is very simple: if people disagree about things, then there is an objective fact that is being disagreed about - for instance the objective rightness or wrongness of infant sacrifices. If an analogy can be drawn, objective ethical facts are a lot like objective scientific facts: in the past, the idea that the earth was flat was accepted by culture at large, but today we know the earth is round despite what those people in the past used to believe (it doesnt make any sense to say that we've only proved that the earth is round today) - there is an objective fact about whether the earth was round or flat, and that objective fact is what we disagree about with pre-Greek cultures. If there werent any objective facts, we wouldnt be able to disagree in the first place, the same holds true for disagreements among ethical facts. Ethical facts are henceforth objective. Thats all there is to it - to show that morality is not subjective, all you have to do is show that people or cultures actually have disputes with one another about whether actions are ethical (which they do). This is the reason why when you say "I also acknowledge that my 'principles of conduct' are not shared by every (possibly any) other person" is a watertight comment, but sails past the point. What you ask is "How is it unethical to kill a cow?", however your semantics shifted the the question to essentially "Is it culturally acceptable to kill a cow?". I assume you want an answer to the first question, because the second question isnt meaningful or even relevant.

Lance, That depends on the competing interests. If there is an interest in long-term success in life, or short-term success on a math test, then it would be better to make my son go to school even if he doesnt want to. If my son is sick, an interest in his well-being of him (and hence keeping him home from school) will usually result in more positive ethical consequences, and schools are usually very flexible in accomodating temporarily ill children. And if my son is afraid to go to school because of a bully, there are probably better solutions than to watch his grades drop because of his inattendance at school (i.e. homeschool would be an extreme, so would transferring schools, perhaps requesting school interference would be a good compromise).

Sayonara, For a lot of the same reasons it is unethical to kill a human: they suffer, and they probably dont want to die.

Syntax, Not all death is the same. If you can concieve that a person being systematically tortured for weeks until they die is less ethical than a person being put to death by a fast acting and painless lethal injection, then you can concieve that there are very clear ethical differences between the loss of life of an unborn person via abortion and the loss of life of a newborn by starving to death. There is a phrase that I hear that says "a life is a life", but I believe that sentiment is simply not the whole story. What is the objection to destroying a human life?

Syntax, It has a very rudimentary ability to feel pain after about 30 weeks of gestation. I think pain is morally relevant, and I find causing things gratuitous pain is profoundly immoral. For very late term abortions, I would recommend the use of anestetics so that if abortion is necessary, the unborn person would not feel pain. However, I'm not sure if you feel the same way - is the fetal pain a deciding factor in your opinion on abortion?

Syntax, My apologies, I read your original comment as a question asking whether it would be appropriate to allow a newborn to starve to death. To answer your question, the newborn baby has a greater claim to the right of its own self-determination than the unborn baby, because the conflict in the interests between self-determination of baby and mother no longer exists. Without any kind of conflict in interests, the only justifiable instance there would be to kill a newborn baby is if it is for the sake of the infant itself. Such as, if the baby were going to be in severe pain for weeks before dying. I use that word as a blanket term for a number of varying types of discomfort, which includes physical pain, anxiety, stress, (sometimes) fear, etc. Yes I do.

Syntax,

Syntax, To the first question: There are always consequences, sometimes women even regret having an abortion. However, if the termination of pregancy is at the consent of the mother, then no, there arent any moral consequences. To the second question: Yes, with practical considerations. At the point of delivery, it is impossible to terminate a pregancy, so that particular desire of a mother is impossible to consider. Other practical considerations is that the unborn person, as it nears coming to term, begins to develop certain mental characteristics, which include among other things a capacity to suffer. However, I've been asked whether I would consider abortion permissible in cases that near almost a full term so long as anesthetic were used - I'm not sure how to answer this. There are certain imaginable circumstances, such as the case of a person being born so severely disabled that they would suffer for short time before eventually dying, but for the most part the capacity to suffer is a very good indication that the life of the unborn person is morally relevant.