Richard Dawkins = Larry Logic ~ Arse
Discussion
I know there are quite a few Larry Logic types on here, just wondered whether they'd like to have a crack at defending Richard Dawkin's latest twitter debacle?
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/uk_national_news...
Gaspode said:
I don't claim to speak for Dawkins, but it seems to me that concepts of morality stem from a frame of reference, and as so are essentially relative to that frame. Someone with an essentially utilitarian outlook might agree with Dawkins, others may not.
There is no absolute right and wrong in matters of moral judgement, although of course there are some matters on which people generally agree despite the differences in their perspectives.
Utilitarianism is most usually defined as a course of actions which increases utility (general benefit) and reduces suffering to others - I can't see how premature death in the womb can be seen as a reduction of suffering to others.There is no absolute right and wrong in matters of moral judgement, although of course there are some matters on which people generally agree despite the differences in their perspectives.
But what you're saying is that from his frame of reference (i.e him being a t
t) then he could argue his moral position, well yes, but that could be the cause of a lot of needless arguments with other tts and their opinions.Here's the twitter conversation....
“994 human beings with Down's Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012. Is that civilised?” @AidanMcCourt asked.
“Yes, it is very civilised. These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings,” Dawkins responded.
“I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma,” @InYourFaceNYer chimed in.
“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he tweeted back.
taken from a non lancastrian news outlet...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-d...
He then goes on to embroil himself in some conversation as to what "disabilities" deserve death and which don't.
“994 human beings with Down's Syndrome deliberately killed before birth in England and Wales in 2012. Is that civilised?” @AidanMcCourt asked.
“Yes, it is very civilised. These are fetuses, diagnosed before they have human feelings,” Dawkins responded.
“I honestly don't know what I would do if I were pregnant with a kid with Down Syndrome. Real ethical dilemma,” @InYourFaceNYer chimed in.
“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he tweeted back.
taken from a non lancastrian news outlet...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-d...
He then goes on to embroil himself in some conversation as to what "disabilities" deserve death and which don't.
Pesty said:
FredClogs said:
Pesty said:
Without having ever been in this situation at this moment in time and on the balance of probabilities I would probably choose to abort.
Because of moral reasoning or because it would make your life easier?What is your axe to grind here. Are you the parent of a sd child or religious aspect to do with abortion.
I'm not religious in any way but I am what is described in normative ethics as a deontologicalist, that is to say I believe that the correct moral thing to do is that which is adherence with "the rules". Most other people it seems fall into the utilitarian or consequentialist camp - that is to say they believe moral actions are those that raise the greater good and least harm or those where the "ends justify the means".
I think that the debate on aborting disabled children or abortion in general is almost unique (along with assisted suicide and euthanasia) at being able to split open these classical normative ethical positions.
But mostly I think Dawkins is a dick and wanted to see how many on here would agree.
TTwiggy said:
I don't like Dawkins, and I find the fact that he's become some sort of 'archbishop of the church of atheism' rather ironic.
On the subject of Downs Syndrome, I'd have to defer to my mother's view and experience. She has spent over 40 years working as a volunteer with disabled children, both within the riding for the disabled association and at a top special needs school.
It goes without saying that she has loved all the kids who have passed through her care, but she is very well placed to see the strain it puts on the parents and the heartbreak which comes from them seeing other kids achieve those 'life landmarks' which theirs will never reach.
Her view on termination of a Downs foetus is that she would be fully supportive of anyone making the decision to have an abortion where it was known that Downs was present.
Indeed, my own mother with 30 years experience as a social worker working with families of disabled children would most likely agree, she will also tell you stories of great achievement by people with Downs, check out the Paralympics, the landmark events which you speak of are all relative, there are plenty of "normal" 40 year olds still at home with mum doing their washing, cooking and cleaning. My father in law with over 30 years in the Police force also voices the opinion that most of the countries population should have been aborted in the womb (I'm never sure if he's serious or not!). These are of course opinions and valid. But when people start talking in terms of what is "moral" and "immoral" as Dawkins did I hope for a little more substantial reasoning.On the subject of Downs Syndrome, I'd have to defer to my mother's view and experience. She has spent over 40 years working as a volunteer with disabled children, both within the riding for the disabled association and at a top special needs school.
It goes without saying that she has loved all the kids who have passed through her care, but she is very well placed to see the strain it puts on the parents and the heartbreak which comes from them seeing other kids achieve those 'life landmarks' which theirs will never reach.
Her view on termination of a Downs foetus is that she would be fully supportive of anyone making the decision to have an abortion where it was known that Downs was present.
ClassicMotorNut said:
I also find Dawkins arrogant and dislikeable but I do like his forthright manner which it seems a lot of people aren't able to handle. He has given his opinion and, unsurprisingly, some especially stupid people are upset by it.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to have a child with Down's syndrome, knowing full well that the child would be so limited and that it would be very difficult to raise him.
Do you think any especially stupid people might be upset by your opinion?I can't imagine why anyone would want to have a child with Down's syndrome, knowing full well that the child would be so limited and that it would be very difficult to raise him.
http://www.downsyndromedaily.com/2011/08/toms-para...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/swimming-this...
Do you even care?
Do you think you can swim 25m butterfly in under 18 seconds? Aren't we all a bit "limited"?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jinx said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Lots of people seem to. But the problem that the opponents of Dawkins face, especially in arguments over the existence or otherwise of God, is that regardless of how obnoxious he may be, he is right, and his opponents are wrong.
As has Dawkins been on occasion. I'd happily debate anthropogenic climate change with him as the concept of a fragile earth climate goes against his own evolutionary stable system theory.Never the less
TwigtheWonderkid said:
FredClogs said:
Most people dislike him because he's a prick, not because if the veracity of his views on the physical actuality of a super natural creator (which you've yet to convince me doesn't exist).
I won't be even trying to convince you. For reasons I've already given. The ball is in your court when it comes to convincing.I see no ball, I have no court or racket and the metaphorical net is an illusion of your anger at something but I'm not sure what.
Justayellowbadge said:
Oh God.
Is this going to descend into paragraph after paragraph debating the meaning of meaning, primary cause and other tedious philosophical self abuse?
I was rather hoping it would stick on the subject at hand, the morality of baby murdering, but some people just can't help themselves from spoiling for an argument...Is this going to descend into paragraph after paragraph debating the meaning of meaning, primary cause and other tedious philosophical self abuse?
Justayellowbadge said:
FredClogs said:
the morality of baby murdering,
I wish to stress that I am not aiming this at you directly, but I have found, without exception, anyone using this sort of emotive term to be bigoted fundamentalist nutjob cretins of the highest order. I'm willing to concede you may be the exception, but it isn't looking good.
Pesty said:
FredClogs said:
I was rather hoping it would stick on the subject at hand, the morality of baby murdering,
FredClogs said:
but some people just can't help themselves from spoiling for an argument...
It seems soYour rather extensive and thoughtful reply to an earlier question of mine seems completely at odds a with every other post of your on this thread.
I think there is only one person here with a very fixed view spoiling for an argument.
Martin4x4 said:
Given the OP start the thread with a pre-emptive adhominem attack, I'll retaliate in kind.
Anybody that draws their ethics from an imaginary friend has an imaginary morality.
Deliberately bringing a profoundly disabled child into a life of suffering is absolutely immoral and anybody that thinks it is a good idea must by definition be a sadist. It is no different from mistreating them after they've been unwittingly brought into the world.
See earlier articles posted on the achievements and possible reality of being "downs". Perhaps if you stopped seeing the labels and saw the humans... You know, more would be possible... We're all a bit disabled aren't we martin?Anybody that draws their ethics from an imaginary friend has an imaginary morality.
Deliberately bringing a profoundly disabled child into a life of suffering is absolutely immoral and anybody that thinks it is a good idea must by definition be a sadist. It is no different from mistreating them after they've been unwittingly brought into the world.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Friday 22 August 12:55
Pesty said:
Fred im wondering what your opinion is of the case linked above where the lady chose not to have an abortion.
I think hope springs eternal, you see some sort of twisted sadistic selfish act, I see hopeless optimism.Neither a moral position, which was my main gripe with Dawkins, his suggestion that it was a moral question.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff