We will have to agree to disagree. Even without conciousness (which we cannot be sure of either way) I still think it's wrong. People spend hours unconscious every night, doesn't make it okay to murder them in their sleep.

First, that was a pretty amusing story, so thank you for taking the time to write that.

I'll just say these few things:

In the case of the guy in your story, he certainly is an anomaly. The doctor probably mislabeled him as brain-dead. People who are descriptively brain-dead, by definition, can't come back to consciousness. Without the brain being able to be supplied with blood and oxygen, the rest of the body just can't work.

>So even with a fetus we just don't know enough about the brain to be 100% on consciousness or lack of if that's what you are getting at.

This is where I was getting at. Consciousness/sentience seems to be the foundation for how we value humans. We may not have perfect knowledge of the brain, but we do know quite a bit. A priori wise, we can deduce that zygotes probably don't have brains and 8 month old fetuses probably do. Furthermore, there is solid scientific evidence that the brain develops the capacity for consciousness at around 6 months.

>If we grew brainless humans in labs for donor organs, kept alive just to take parts from as they live alone in a tube people would be outraged and sickened, even without a brain.

I can understand that people would be sickened/outraged by this thought experiment. However, arguably moral conclusions shouldn't stem directly from our intuition about things. In the past, many people intuitively thought slavery was acceptable, but those intuitions don't justify the conclusion.

Life has an infinite of objectives but I believe when we don’t get to focus on the objectives that meet our preferences we start thinking no other objective is worth our time then we trick ourselves into quitting the game prematurely

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

> I don’t recall saying anything about living a better life but yes, “value” is not real…

I think I misquoted, I see “navigate life better” in another one of your comments - better than what? In what way? The point of this was that this is implicitly a value statement.

> The concept of a horse is a concept. But the actual horse exists apart from the concept.

Prove this.

> Concepts exist outside of our minds as abstract things.

Another assumption.

> Morality exists outside your mind.

Another assumption.

It sounds like you don’t subscribe to materialism, which is a fine place to avoid setting up camp; I myself am a dualist on good days and an idealist on bad ones. And yet, while I believe in an objective reality, I have yet to prove that materialism is an untenable world view, just as you have failed to do, along with countless philosophical minds of the past much greater than ours. This isn’t to say that I don’t truly believe in my worldview, but the minute I appeal to the distinct nature of qualia the materialist will object. More philosophical work must be done for the matter to be “settled,” if it ever can be.

> So far you have given zero evidence of being smarter than me, you've done the opposite, you've made me begin to suspect you're feigning stupidity to troll me.

Where did I say I was smarter than you, and how is that even relevant? The caliber of my intellect does not grant or revoke special credence to my ideas. The ideas should have merit on their own, and “stand trial” as you say. Likewise, me indicting your ideas is not indicting your intellect. The only personal thing I was criticizing was your behavior. Finally, I assure you I am not feigning anything; if I’m truly that incoherent in these remarks then I am that stupid.

There is a guy I don't like, a guy most people hate because he is a theif, scam artist, etc. A few months back he finally screwed over the wrong person and was jumped by two guys. He got hit in the head with a blunt object and then punched and his head slammed into the pavement hard. He was taken to a hospital and after a few days declared braindead. They reached out to his family and his mother was suppose to come see him the next day and they were going to pull the plug. His few friends spread the word that night thinking someone might actually be sad about it.

Well when I heard the news I was esctastic that the piece of shit was dead. A group of us in the same circle were celebrating. This dude had stolen from or mugged almost everyone in our social circle at some point so we drank shots to his karma catching up to him.

Skip forward a few months to last week. This guy walks up to me and says he remembers me but not my name. I had to do a double take, it was the very same piece of shit only instead of being a huge hulk of a man he was now skin and bones. He had a hole in his head and a hair piece that covered it. He feigned having no memory from before his attack but I told him to stay the hell away from me even if he is special needs now or whatever.

The point is though he was alive and well. I asked a friend that actually was friends with him what the deal was. Apparently his sister flipped out when their mother explained about the plan to come say goodbye and pull the plug. She convinced her mom not to do it and so the plug was not pulled despite him being braindead. Three days later he started recovering and showing brain activity again and then woke up.

So i have to say thay are just as valued as if a piece of shit with very negative karma can recover from being braindead in a coma I guess anyone has a shot if the plug isn't pulled.

We just don't understand the brain well enough yet to really understand it.

So even with a fetus we just don't know enough about the brain to be 100% on consciousness or lack of if that's what you are getting at. Even before there is any brain they are still a living human. If we grew brainless humans in labs for donor organs, kept alive just to take parts from as they live alone in a tube people would be outraged and sickened, even without a brain.

I know atheists against abortion like myself are rare but I believe it wrong. I'll stick to human and alive as my red line for when executing the innocent is wrong

Do you value a brain-dead human on ventilation the same way you value a teenager?

Corpses are not alive. Are you talking about bacteria inside a corpse? I don't understand.

Many people attribute sentimental value to a corpse, but not moral value. Most societies don't give corpses moral rights the same way moral rights are given to people.

The broader point I am making is that when you say you value "life", I don't think you really value a thing that is biologically living. Because if you really did value "life" for personhood, you would apply it to a corpse that still has living biological functions. However (correct me if I'm wrong), your reply implied that you don't value corpses. If that's the case, why do you value the living biological functions of fetuses and teenagers, but not the living biological functions of corpses?

>"You say “value” is not real, but then elsewhere talk about living a “better life,” and that “nihilism is stupid.”"

I don't recall saying anything about living a better life but yes, "value" is not real and nihilism is stupid.

>"You roll out a laundry list of things that are “real” or “myth” (which aren’t ordinarily juxtaposed as exact antonyms),"

Did I say they were exact antonyms? Does it matter to my point? I don't think it matters to my point.

>"seemingly without any serious reflection upon the entires and thereby introducing a number of inconsistencies into the list."

Then you either don't understand what I'm saying or you're smarter than me in which case I would ask you to enlighten me where I am inconsistent.

>"You say, or imply, that a horse is “real” and a Pegasus is a “myth.”

Technically I am using pegasus as a symbol of a fictional thing more than example of myth but sure, the general point is that to the ancient Greeks the pegasi were like the alligators thriving in the New York sewers.

>"Well, this is confusing for one because you are using the wrong sense of myth that you cited, as people rightly (according to you) believe a Pegasus to be a fiction."

...as in people today? Yes, people today see pegasi as fictional. That's the point. That's why I used them.

"But it is primarily confusing because you claim a concept is “real,”"

Hhohh boy. Yes, all concepts are real concepts. There's no such thing as a fictional concept.

>"yet a Pegasus is a concept."

The concept of the pegasus is a concept, yes. The concept of the horse is a concept. But the actual horse exists apart from just being a concept. If it didn't a horse would be a fictional thing. This is my point. This is why I used horse and pegasus.

>"In what sense is it a “myth” then?"

Because the ancient Greeks believed pegasi were non-fictional flying around somewhere. This is how Zeus and the New York sewer alligators are different from Harry Potter and James Bond.

>"That it doesn’t exist outside of your mind?"

Harry Potter and James Bond don't exist outside our imagination and are therefore fictions. Basically no one thought they were not fictions so they're not myths.

>"Do other concepts? Do horses?"

Concepts exist outside our minds as abstract things. And at risk of beating a dea... hrm, horses exist outside our minds as they are not fictions.

So far you have given zero evidence of being smarter than me, you've done the opposite, you've made me begin to suspect you're feigning stupidity to troll me. In other words, what you just had me do above? That was me breaking down the most basic things and mansplaining it because it seemed you barely knew how a concept works e.g. how the concept of Superman existing as a concept differs from Superman existing in real life and from Superman existing as a fictional character in the imagination.

>"Basically your comments are formed on the tip of an iceberg of ontological assumptions. Which wouldn’t be a problem if you entered into these discussions from a position of intellectual humility, but instead you baselessly assert everything you put forth as fact"

Not baselessly.

>"and display childish exasperation and immature condescension when challenged."

Not quite, I display exasperation with the immaturity I have on occasion been presented with. I ENJOY being challenged on the intellectual logical level. Instead I have been receiving responses like the following:

>"According to you nothing is real and everything is a myth." --FireingHex

(That's strawman argument if not an outright lie)

>"Like “organisms don’t need to live”. Okay? Go ahead and don’t" --FireingHex

(That's telling me to go kill myself)

>"You are free to believe life is pointless and humanity is not the center, but what is life's point then?" --FireingHex

(That's outright stupidity. What to even call it, an inverse tautological question?)

I completely agree. I kant believe that people think moral absolutism is still relevant in our globally connected world. The only moral principle I can think of that's universal is that one must consciously choose to be happy in a sad world. I like your take on utilitarianism. It's just a regurgitated take on life's lesser of two evils game, huh? It's as if people aren't forced to read Homer in school anymore. Damn, I hate STEM education.

>Same with morality, or moral evil/good. Or are you using a different definition of imaginary?

Morality exists outside the mind. Good and evil that is, not "morally right" and "morally wrong", in the latter sense I would agree.

Most people do. That's why desecration of a corpse is a crime.

But I apply it to living humans, like teenagers and fetuses.

A human corpse can have living and working biological functions. Would you attribute moral consideration to a corpse?

Do no harm is quite vague, sometimes causing harm serves a higher moral purpose, for example the punishing of criminals. Call me biased but I think "Love your neighbours as yourself" and "Love God above all else".

This is a pretty weak take. For the sake of the argument assume that the old testament is 100% accurate. What is the outcome for the Hebrews every time they forget their God and start worshipping idols? It's not good things, let me tell you that much. You can of course disagree on the accuracy of the old testament, but the internal logic is clearly not that God gives one of the 10 commandments out of jealousy.

Life doesn't need to be reduced to a rulebook. It can be summed up in one sentence.

"Let your conscience be your guide."

You say “value” is not real, but then elsewhere talk about living a “better life,” and that “nihilism is stupid.”

You roll out a laundry list of things that are “real” or “myth” (which aren’t ordinarily juxtaposed as exact antonyms), seemingly without any serious reflection upon the entires and thereby introducing a number of inconsistencies into the list.

You say, or imply, that a horse is “real” and a Pegasus is a “myth.” Well, this is confusing for one because you are using the wrong sense of myth that you cited, as people rightly (according to you) believe a Pegasus to be a fiction. But it is primarily confusing because you claim a concept is “real,” yet a Pegasus is a concept. In what sense is it a “myth” then? That it doesn’t exist outside of your mind? Do other concepts? Do horses?

Basically your comments are formed on the tip of an iceberg of ontological assumptions. Which wouldn’t be a problem if you entered into these discussions from a position of intellectual humility, but instead you baselessly assert everything you put forth as fact, and display childish exasperation and immature condescension when challenged.

Well put 👏

Moral principles are subjective in nature. A right decision today can easily be interpreted as the wrong one tomorrow. One should learn to think divergently and rely on logic and reason to navigate life better. I'm curious: Who will be dictating what moral principles we should commit to? When will our navigator be arriving to show all of "us" how to navigate life better? Using morality to guide an individual through life isn't even emotionally intelligent. Seriously!

Reading philosophy for the last fifty years has brought me back to my childhood education. Philosophers make complicated explanations demonstrating the superiority of their education and their intellect but really they just say what the nuns taught us. “Be humble, we really don’t ‘know’ anything, be nice to each other when you can.”

It might not need need a strong foundation if the post to beam shear transfer moments have strong gussets and it will likely need some attachment to resist lateral movement and uplift.

Death. The ending of life. Murder.

None of that happens with bc or rubbers.

And sperm are not alive, to be alive you have to be able to reproduce at some point, sperm can never reproduce no matter how old they get.

Poop isn't human. Look up the genus homo and see if there is a homo turd listed there. A homo sperm. There is not.

And if something is human or not matters quite a bit in many philosophies.

Human as an adjective refers to of or belonging to the genus homo. Which is generally applied to anything containing human dna. But you kind of ignored the bit about wether something is human being irrelevant to moral philosophy. Neither is wether things are alive. Although sperm is arguably alive anyway. You need to ground this in some kind of relevant consequence. What harm is done in abortion that isn’t done with abstinence?

Your thoughts are not that far off from mine although we are arriving there from different angles. Also, I'm more hesitant to use the word God because it is so different than what people mean by "God" here in Texas.

But much respect for where you are coming from. We can both keep searching.