What if god is a really big tapeworm, and he set all this up to create more tapeworms, in the same fashion that darwinians sometimes say that a hen is just an egg's method of producing another egg?

It is arrogant to assume we were His purpose.

Interesting point. In order yo be sure you should, of course, speak with a tapeworm or at least spend time in tapeworm society, become familiar with tapeworm cilization, tapeworm cosmology, metaphysics etc. One must undertstand how the tapeworm feels about the whole question and how it affects the tapeworm community as a whole.

NEWSFLASH! Harry, who thinks himself competent to come up with his own morality and that Darwin explained creation, now realizes that men are arrogant. In our book, that's progress.

I'm of two minds about it. Certainly Edwards would have us abase ourselves to the level of tapeworms, else he would not have written what he did.

An unappealing prospect, to me, but, ironically, Darwinism does not require elevation of man above tapeworms.

We do that on our own kick, but if it turns out god is a tapeworm and he finds out what we've been doing to the tapeworms, we're in for a hot eternity.

If God is a tapeworm and we can do that to tapeworms, aren't we the gods?

NEWSFLASH:

Harry never thought himself competent to come up with morality, and has never once asserted that Darwinism explains creation.

OJ, you are giving Maureen Dowd a run for her money.

Thanks, Jeff.

Actually, given Orrin's project of deriving morality from some first principle, I think it can be done without bringing in God. But we do not have to, since we have thousands of years of practical experience to draw on.

I would relate the origin of morality to the origin of tapioca.

Presumably, the first caveman who experimented with manioc died an agonizing death. You might expect that the other cavemen would have concluded, "Ugh, bad plant. Do not eat."

They didn't, though. Somehow they decided to grate the root, press out the juice and made cakes out of the pulp.

Or, as somebody once said, "He was a brave man who first eat an oyster."

Whatever the morality of eating tapioca may be, in theory, we don't have to go through it anew each time. We learn stuff.

Harry-

We learn? Why 100 million murdered for a Utopian fantasy? Why 2 world wars? The cold war,etc.,etc.

What have we learned exactly? If only we had all been purely materialist none of it would have happened?

Tom:

We have learned, we are imperfect.

For most of the world, Utopian fantasies are relics. Unfortunately, a certain believers of a certain religion, using Allah as its first principle, are perfectly capable of justifying every bit as much horror as they can manage.

It may have been a utopian fantasy, but it was offered as a replacement for a society so awful that the fantasy looked good.

More people died in China in the name of Jesus than in the name of Mao. Porportionately, about 10 times as many.

Jeff:

We've murdered 40 million babies while you murmured platitudes about choice.

Harry:

You really think that Marxism/Socialism was preferable to the societies it replaced in Germany, Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, Poland, etc.? Again I ask, in all honesty, are you a communist yourself?

Mao quite intentionally killed 30-60 million. When have Christians ever done anything comparable in China?

We murdered 40 million babies?

I didn't. You didn't. Nor did Harry, or Tom C., or Peter. Or any of the Supreme Court Justices.

We need to be a little more specific about who "we" are.

"We" in this case refers to somewhere between 10 and 40 million women (depending on how many abortions per woman). We are surrounded by vicious, female murderers.

In an earlier thread I mentioned the rights of fists ending where noses start. Pregnancy doesn't recognize that boundary. So a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Who is to to the drawing?

That I would leave that line drawing to each woman is not a platitude, its an assertion that freedom doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot if a woman isn't allowed to decide where that line goes. It isn't society's womb, and it isn't society's fetus.

Jeff:

That's inane on every level.

You aren't implicated because you didn't perform the abortions or decide to have them? How many of the Christians you hate ever killed a heathen themselves?

Rights end at others' noses? Shouldn't abortion be forbidden once the fetus has a nose?

Freedom means the right to kill?

Jeff-

Have you listened to the Democratic candidates for president? Representatives of the left wing of that party? The socialists in Germany or France? You really believe utopian fantasy a relic of the past? I beg to differ. It is alive and well and the tendency will always be with us. Atheistic/materialism as a practical alternative to social organization being a current example.

Tom:

I doubt they believe in a utopian fantasy. They certainly have moral beliefs about the best way to organize society, beliefs that are far more consistent than yours or mine with Jesus' advice that it is better to give, than receive.

Conservatives, among other things, believe earning is best of all.

So I see the respective viewpoints as differing bases for social organization, not utopian promises.

Atheistic materialism is not an alternative to social organization, any more than religion is. I happen to be an "atheist materialist" (scare quotes due to the sloppy way religionists use those terms), yet, as all the AMs I know, hold the largely the same ideas regarding social organization as you.

Many Catholics vote for liberal Democrats.

Hence my assertion that religious belief is largely irrelevant until it gets shoved down someone's throat.

Jeff:

The belief that secular Man will give rather than ask to receive is the very essence of Utopianism. Your freeloading atheism, to your great credit, is a recognition that your philosophy can't serve up a tenable morality.

OJ:

I would very much appreciate it if you stopped mischaracterizing my responses.

I have never, ever, said I hate Christians. I do strongly distrust organized religion, as well as any other baroque, monarchic, belief system.

I'm sure you would not assert that it is impossible to distinguish between organizations and individuals. Therefore, my dislike of organized religion is utterly distinct from its practitioners.

When I made that point between rights and noses, I hoped it would be clear that, with one glaring exception, rights can not be forced upon someone. You are free to speak, I am free not to listen. I am free to practice my religion, I am not free to impose it upon you.

Pregnancy is different. This is a case where, should there be a contest between the woman's and the fetuse's interests, one is going to totally predominate at the absolute expense of the other. It is also unique in that some people with absolutely no material investment in the problem desire to impose a solution.

My pointing out your use of the word "we" is that it dilutes attention away from who you are really talking about: millions upon millions of women who are murderers. Don't hide what you mean by using the overarching we.

I am in favor of women having the freedom to follow their own consciences; I also like to drink. But I am no more resposible for any abortion than I am for any instance of alcohol induced vehicular homicide.

Freedom means the right to make decisions that others don't necessarily like. It also means making decisions using moral criteria you may not share.

Whose womb, and fetus, is it, anyway?

Jeff:

that's all evil ever requires is the arbitrary redefinition of who is human and worthy of life. You want to kill babies, others want to kill Hutus, others Jews, others Christians, others homosexualsa, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. Simply assert whichever group isn't fully human and you have carte blanche. Some noses are less equal than others.

The fetus is his own.

When did Christians kill 30m-60m people in China?

In the 1840s-50s. About 50 million, more or less, but who's counting?

As for whether Marxism/socialism was superior to what it replaced, in Germany, yes. In China, no worse. In Russia, mixed results.

That's just my view. But you'd have to ask them, not me. They did vote with their feet in Russia and China, though not in Poland, Germany etc.

Harry;

Got a citation for that?

And I know you approve of Bolshevism, but even Weimar was preferable to Nazism.

OJ:

That is libelous.

You have utterly no idea what I want to do with babies, you only know with whom I prefer to leave the decision.

If your absolutist position were to become the law of the land, some desperate women would choose to kill themselves in the face of an unwanted pregnancy. Though that would be a certain consequence, for me to accuse you of desiring the death of these women would be an accusation most foul.

That the fetus is unable to exist outside the womb would seem to render your assertion at least questionable. But never mind that, who's womb is it?

Jeff:

You can't dodge moral cuplability just by saying I left the decision up to someone else. If you supported the legalization of say racial genocide but didn't want to participate the blood would still be on your soul.

The womb is hers just as your living room is yours. Try killing the next person who enters your living room and then telling the judge: "But it's mine..."

OJ:

Religionists are freeloading on secularism in order that they may die of old age.

Except, of course, that research shows the religious live longer and happier lives than secularists.

"Except" seems the wrong word choice.

The rest of the sentence makes my point regarding religionists precisely.

Your other point is equally confused. Should someone enter my living room, I could decide whether they stay or go, and be able to call the police should they refuse to leave when directed.

Since it is HER womb and HER fetus, I can escape moral culpability in a way impossible with your example. And as distasteful as some decisions might be to me, it is preferable to ramming a particular notion of specifically when humanity begins down the throat of someone who does not share that notion.

And you accuse me of statism. Sheesh.

Jeff:

The euphemism "go" is an interesting alternate for kill.

Jonathan D. Spence, "God's Chinese Son."

I would not have described Weimar as the regime previous to the GDR. Nor, from the point of view of non-Germans, was it much, if any, better than the Nazis.

The Nazis were socialists and the Taiping Rebellion was hardly Christian, given that its leader thought he was God's second son.

OJ:

No, it isn't a euphemism. It can't be because your analogy is innapropriate.

I presume you would feel justified in killing someone who had broken into your living room. I'm also quite certain that doesn't make you pro-choice.

Why? Because an inappropriate analogy isn't a particularly good basis for drawing conclusions.

Jeff:

Yes, you're right: there's a strong case for allowing abortion when a woman is raped. That is the proper analogy for what you're speaking of. But if I invite someone into my living room, I'm not allowed to kill them. The analogy is precise

OJ:

No it isn't. You are allowed to ask them to leave at any time--your choice--and expect that request will be obeyed without hesitation. And you have recourse to the police to enforce your choice. Furthermore, since it is your living room, no one else has a say in your choice.

Where the analogy breaks down is at the word "them." Not only do some define when a fetus attains "them" status differently than others, that status also has a situational element that itself varies widely.

If consensus on these issues existed, there would be no argument. In the absence of anything even remotely approaching consensus, imposing one eliminates all but the imposer's freedom.

BTW--your analogy would be more apt if you added that the alternative to remaining in the living room was being ejected into a blinding blizzard with death by exposure a certain result.

Jeff:

That too proves the point. If you order the person out of your living room to their certain death you are morally responsible for killing them. Of course if they're a fetus or a black or whoever's been defined out of humanity at the moment and you don't think they're human, you'll feel no twinge of conscience, but it is still immoral.

Odd socialists, those Nazis, who were bankrolled by big business and got most of their votes from the middle class. And whose only serious opponents were actual socialists.

I am aware you are competent to declare who is a Christian and who is not, having stated, for example, that a nation full of Christians was not a Christian nation.

I am the last person to be able to say who is a Christian or who is not. If he says he is, I take him at his word.

But think the National Socialists were being tricky? They did refer to themselves as socialists, not Christians, remember?

What is Interventionism? (George Reisman, September 10, 2003, Mises.org)

Interventionism is any act of government that both represents the initiation of physical force and, at the same time, stops short of imposing an all-round socialist economic system, in which production takes place entirely, or at least characteristically, at the initiative of the government. In contrast to socialism, interventionism is a system in which production continues to take place characteristically, at the initiative of private individuals, including private corporations, and is motivated by the desire to earn private profit. Interventionism exists in the framework of a market economy, though, as von Mises puts it, such a market economy is a hampered market economy.

Many countries often thought to be socialist, either now or in the past, such as Sweden, Israel, and Britain under the old Labor Party, should be thought of as hampered market economies instead. For production in those countries characteristically takes place, or did take place, at private initiative, motivated by private profit. The effect of the very extensive interventionism in those countries was or is to prevent people from doing many, many things they would have done had they been free to do them and to compel them to do many, many things they would not have done had they not been compelled to do them. But within those confines, matters pertaining to production were and are characteristically still decided by private individuals, motivated by the prospect of making profits and avoiding losses. Thus, it is still private initiative, motivated by private profit, that animates and drives the economy of those countries. The fact that the ruling political party in such countries may call itself socialist and support the philosophy of socialism is not sufficient to make them socialist countries in fact.

The only genuinely socialist countries that have existed have been the Soviet Union and its East European satellites, Communist China and its satellites, Cuba, and also, very importantly, Nazi Germany. Mises explains that Nazi Germany was a socialist state by virtue of the existence of all-round price controls and the consequent shortages they create. In response to the existence of shortages and the economic chaos that accompanies them, the government takes control of all fundamental decisions concerning production, such as what is produced, in what quantities, by what methods, and who is to get the resulting product. Mises call such socialism, socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, to distinguish it from the obvious socialism of the Soviets, in which all means of production are openly nationalized, and which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

Socialism on the German pattern is deceptive and often mistakenly characterized as capitalism because it maintains the outward form and appearance of private ownership of the means of production and thus of capitalism. However, under German-style socialism, private ownership exists in name only. The power to make all the substantive decisions that constitutes the essence of ownership is in the hands of the government and is exercised by the government. Socialism on the German or Nazi pattern is de facto socialism.

Well, if you want to deine something as socialism that has none of the characteristics of socialism, have at it.

You treat Christianity the same way, so sauce for the goose, I guess.

I would never describe Nazi Germany as capitalist. It was incoherent, had abandoned money as a medium of exchange, supported itself by capital gifts from Republican bankers in New York.

Nazi Germany was a socialist as Bismarck's Germany was. Or as Rome was under the Antonines.

I will say that, toward the end, the SS economy, which was being run separate from the rest of Germany, was command capitalist.

What else can you call it when the central government makes all production decisions?

Come now Harry. Your fixations are clouding your judgement. National Socialism's "nationalism" is the key distinction. "Command Capitalism" is a meaningless phrase.

OJ:

You defined the conceptus of rape out of humanity.

That must be the gold standard then.

Such is your hubris.

No, I said you could make a better case, since the woman had no choice about the creation of the fetus. That does resemble your person invading the living room. A better case though is not a conclusive one.

OJ:

One other thing. Stop asserting that I have somehow defined fetuses out of humanity.

If you read closely what I have written here (admittedly not an easy task, given the number of responses you generate), I have only posed the problem. Well, that, and protested sloppy terminology--honesty with the issue compels concluding you are literally surrounded by murderesses.

The problem is so intractable that advocating any gold-standard--yours falls afoul of some for allowing the murdering of children--means elevating that gold standard at the expense of the myriad others.

And would use state power to impose an outcome upon the only person who is bearing the entire burden.

That sure isn't my idea of freedom.

The child bears the burden, the mother disposes of one.

That's as may be. You still haven't addressed the fundamental problem: whose gold standard?

God's. A fetus is a human being, made in His image, with the same right to life as its mother, though not more.

I guess that makes you an asbolutist, who would elminate abortion under any circumstances, including even severe threats to the mother's health.

Because to prefer the mother's health to the fetus's survival elevates the former's right to life over the latter's, contravening God's plan.

Don't be surprised if there are a lot of people who find that gold standard dross. Which means you have to impose your gold standard--your concept of God's plan--upon them.

At the risk of sounding offensive--which I really don't mean to be, since I'm just trying to highlight some irrevocable problems with the whole issue--that sounds hubristic to me.

I said precisely the opposite, that the right to life of the fetus isnot superior to the mother's. In cases where one or the other life must be sacrificed it will be appropriate to considfer the totality of the circumstances in deciding which to save.

I don't mind your implication at all. Every law is an imposition of a standard on the unwilling. That law which errs on the side of life is least objectionable, as the 40 million corpses piled on your side of the standard amply, though silently, testify.

That's just it, Tom. Germany had a Four-Year Plan, but it was not followed. Nazi grandees interfered all the time.

A private capitalist could get what he wanted, if he played the game.

A good thing for us, too. We might not have been able to defeat a Germany that really was run on socialist lines. Germany was unable to defeat a Soviet Russia being managed on socialist lines, although the USSR had much less economic potential in 1941 than Germany had in 1939.

Harry:

So that is why you think we couldn't have beaten the USSR in '44-'45, because socialism is superior to capitalism?

Jeff:

Tell me this child isn't a human being.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12773312,00.html