I’m gonna try this here, but feel free to move it to a more appropriate venue.
I need a check on a couple of arguments I’ve made in the past that I see echoed here and elsewhere. The first was during an abortion debate, when at some point the woman on the other end of the discussion said “How would you feel if you had been aborted? You should thank your mother that you weren’t” (This could be another corollary to Godwin’s Law). I replied along the lines of “That isn’t a valid statement, because if I had been aborted, I wouldn’t be here to worry about it.” Since then I’ve added to it: If I had been conceived on another day, I wouldn’t be the person I am now. Who I am now would not exist, so the whole argument is pointless, and unsustainable. Am I right, or is there a hole in my thinking?
Second logic check: In a debate with a conservative/fundamentalist Christian, I argued that everyone should be free to choose their beliefs. The other person felt that they had a duty to set others straight (by conforming to the fundamentalist’s beliefs). Someone else pointed out that my argument was not any better than the fundamentalists’, because I was imposing my belief of free choice, as opposed to the fundamentalist’s imposition of their beliefs. I said no, I wasn’t promoting any belief in particular, only an individual’s right to choose what they believe. Again, am I right, or am I just imposing my belief over the fundamentalist’s beliefs?
On pont two, I think it contradictory to impose a choice. Person A says “believe as i do”. Person B says “believe what you will”. Person A is imposing a single choice, Person B is giving many options. The two are not the same.
On the first point, this is a fallacy of false premise. To explain, we need to take the informal language of the argument and re-structure it in a way that can be formally examined for logical consistency. Please note that in doing so, I may be extrapolating additional meaning which was not intended.
The informal argument “How would you feel if your mother aborted you?” is reconstructed as follows:
Every person should do unto others as they would have others do unto them.
A person would never wish others to do things to that person in a manner which makes them feel bad.
So described, there is a very obvious argument against premise #3 (since an aborted person feels nothing), which invalidates the argument; Although not necessarily making the conclusion false, this false premise prevents this particular argument from proving it.
On the second part of your OP, no argument is presented. Instead, you have merely stated two mutually-inconsistent premises. No conclusions may be drawn without additional premises. In order to arrive at a logical conclusion regarding the subject matter, it is necessary to begin with premises which are accepted by both sides, and then to argue to the conclusion from there.
She: "“How would you feel if you had been killed when you were 14 years old? You should thank God that you weren’t”
Vlad: “That isn’t a valid statement, because if I had been killed when I was 14 years old, I wouldn’t be here to worry about it.”
Just because you wouldn’t be here to worry about it, doesn’t mean that being killed at age 14 is not a problem.
Regarding her argument, it’s not clear what she means by “how would you feel if you had been aborted?”
If she means how would you physically feel at the instant of abortion, then if abortion happens early enough, you will not be able to feel a thing.
If she means whether you, today, would prefer a world timeline in which you had been aborted compared to the actual world timeline in which you have not been aborted, then it may be an interesting thing to contemplate, but I don’t think it can be used as a general argument against abortion.
[quote]
Second logic check: In a debate with a conservative/fundamentalist Christian, I argued that everyone should be free to choose their beliefs. The other person felt that they had a duty to set others straight (by conforming to the fundamentalist’s beliefs). Someone else pointed out that my argument was not any better than the fundamentalists’, because I was imposing my belief of free choice, as opposed to the fundamentalist’s imposition of their beliefs. I said no, I wasn’t promoting any belief in particular, only an individual’s right to choose what they believe. Again, am I right, or am I just imposing my belief over the fundamentalist’s beliefs?
[quote]
Neither of you are imposing your beliefs. You are both trying to impose and promote your beliefs. It is irrelevant that your belief would allow the other person to continue to practice her or his belief and that the other person’s belief is intrusive.
Fuji: Arigato gaizamas. For point two, I may have mis-spoken in that I didn’t really present an argument. My point, as arrogant as it is/was, was that I was in a morally superior position by allowing someone else to decide what they believed, as opposed to insisting that they conform to my beliefs.
Polerius: I don’t want to rehash the argument in this thread. We could split a lot of hairs over what is moral or immoral. What I am interested in is being able to refute her statement, instead of changing the circumstances to provide a different perspective. I believe what she was trying to do was get me to denounce abortion by trying to get me upset over my mortality.
Zoe: Thanks. As stated above, I was assuming that I was taking the morally higher position by allowing exercise of free will. But that takes me back to my original question: is it ever possible to not impose your beliefs on someone else? I was assuming that I wasn’t, but maybe I was?
In 1977 my father took a trip to Pittsburg. While there, he met my mother. The result, five years later, was me. So I guess I’m glad that my father took a trip to Pittsburg, but that doesn’t attach any moral value to his act of taking a trip to Pittsburg. It wouldn’t have been wrong of him not to do so.
On the second argument, it seems to me a case of an argument that pops up all the time, particularly in internet discussions. A person says that they hold a certain action to be morally right, and their opponent immediately accuses them of wanting to force their moral beliefs on someone else. But the first person never tried to force anything; they just stated an opinion. This vein of arguing is pretty stupid, if you want my opinion. I think it results naturally from a culture where everybody is trying to play the role of a victim of oppression.
This is usually my argument (obviously not the specifics). But reading it now I realize it’s fallacious (funny how I can pick up the fallacy only when someone else is stating it).
Here’s the deal: Going to Pittsburgh has no predictable consequences, so you can’t attach a moral weight one way or the other to the action. Having an abortion does. In fact it has predictable consequences for a specific individual - it’s death. You could use your same argument to defend murder in the face of the question: “how would you feel if you’d been murdered?” Which is a perfectly legitimate ethical argument against murder. In fact, the best.
The issue invariably devolves back to - when do we think an individual deserves to be protected?
I’m not the greatest logic person, but on point two, the fundamentalist is wrong according to the Bible itself, and least the KJ from my childhood days. Now, I’m very weak on scripture, but as a girl when I was a member of the church I was pretty darn good, if my sister were here, I could ask her for the verses and chapters. But our bible states that it is AGAINST God’s will to shove it down others’ throats. We’re supposed to allow our lives to be the witness to God, not nutsiness like Jack Chick.
As stated above, I was assuming that I was taking the morally higher position by allowing exercise of free will. But that takes me back to my original question: is it ever possible to not impose your beliefs on someone else? I was assuming that I wasn’t, but maybe I was?