Parallel Arguments

Great Debates
1

Anti: Surely, you MUST see that (slavery / abortion / eating meat) is immoral.

Pro: Oh, for Pete’s sake, you fanatics never give up. Look, nobody’s saying that (slavery /abortion / slaughtering innocent animals) is pleasant, but you have to live in the REAL world. (Slavery / abortion / butchery) has ALWAYS existed, and it always will.

Anti: But how can you possibly say that? A (slave / fetus / cow) is one of God’s creatures, and it has rights!

Pro: Cripes, you talk like a (nigger /fetus / cow) is a human being! It’s NOT a human being! It’s a (piece of property / blob of tissue / dumb animal). Look, if YOU don’t want to (own slaves / kill babies / eat Big Macs), fine. That’s YOUR choice. But don’t you tell the rest of us what to do (on our own farms / with our own bodies / in our kitchens).

Anti: But it’s cruel! It’s barbaric!

Pro: I worry about nuts like you. You’re just like those lunatics with (John Brown / Operation Rescue / PETA). You think those (niggers / fetuses /animals) are more important than real people, and you’ll even resort to violence if people won’t do things your way.

Okay, I’m on the verge of beating this comparison to death, if I haven’t already. Fact is, however, the arguments on both sides are practically identical, when it comes to s;lavery, abortion AND meat-eating. Now, except for an occasional Klansmen, NOBODY believes in slavery today. But VERY few of us accept the ANTI argument on all 3 issues. LOTS of us are against slavery and abortion, LOTS of us are against slavery and meat. but virtually nobody opposes all three.

Whatever side you’re on, explain why you accept the ANTI argument in 2 cases, but not the 3rd.

2

This is easy. One is creating an artificial speration where none exists in real life. Now if your agrument were based simply on slavery and not on racism and slavery, that ould be harder. For the sake of argument, I’m going to remove the racial element from your post. I will think about it, and respond.

3

So, because there are overlaps between the arguments that some people use to defend/attack these three positions, you conclude that all three issues are morally identical?!?!?
First of all, your argument is based on choosing only the common responses encountered when debating the three issues. You then conclude that because some responses are common, the issues must be related. There are, however, arguments one can apply to the issues of abortion (when does a fetus qualify as a human life?) that cannot be applied to, say, slavery. So you argument that the issues are parallel begs the question by carefully
excluding all but the commonalities.

This is poor logic.

Secondly, while you’ve picked up on common threads, I don’t think any of the arguments you chose to present are unique to these three cases. They are most often resorted to by people who don’t really want to engage in debate about the issues. They are used in many, many arguments, not just about these three issues. “Because God says so”, is, for instance, used as an argument by religious fundamentalists for nearly all aspects of thier lives. Are we to conclude on the basis of this fact, that all issues in which the argument “God says so” is used are morally equivalent?

This is also poor logic.

4

what ren said …

5

Gosh, Ren, you sure put ME in my place! How can I argue with “logic” like that?

The fact is, there is no LOGICAL argument against slavery, any more than there is against abortion or meat. There are only moral arguments, which are inherently irrational. Indeed, in ANY moral debate, the guy who’s content with the status quo will ALWAYS appear to be cool and rational, while the guy who wants to change things will always look like a whacko.

Do you doubt that, in a debate between John Brown and Jefferson Davis, Davis would have looked calm, collected and rational, while Brown looked like a murderous fruitcake? Do you doubt that Davis could cite a hundred pro-slavery arguments from intellects like Aristotle, while Brown could only harrumph that God had told him (personally) how evil slavery is.

Now, as always, history is written by the winners. Thus, we NOW grow up hearing that slavery was evil, and we scratch our heads and wonder, “How could anyone have done such a thing?”

Well, can ANY of us be sure that our beliefs will be prevalent a few generations from now? I eat meat regularly, and see NOTHING immoral about it. But can I be sure that, in a few generations, the USA won’t be a vegetarian society that looks back in horror at what people like me are doing now? Can YOU be sure that, in a few generations, an overwhelmingly Christian America won’t be horrified by current sexual mores?

The fundamental arguments involved in the slavery, abortion and meat debates are identical. In each cse, the argument is, Does this living being have rights that we’re obliged to respect?

Take it from there.

6

Sheesh, I didn’t mean to bite your head off, I was responding to the content of your post. I have to say I find your follow-up disorienting:

Well, if you weren’t concerned with logic, why present an argument at all, why not just rant? Maybe you should have put this in the pit. Also, if you’re not concerned with logic, why language like: "“Fact is, however, the arguments on both sides are practically identical”. I guess there’s no point in trying to be factual if you’re not concerned with logic, is there?

Also, If you were trying to start a debate about how moral values change and what we can expect in the future, why did you set up a comparison between these three issues, and then name your thread “parallel arguments?” It looks like you did a bit of a switcheroo in your second post, changing the theme of this thread. Either that or you’re not at all clear as to what you’re after.

As for why I responded the way I did, I took my cue for response from the last line in your OP:

That’s what I responded to. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my post, so let me spell it out:

Your OP draws parallels between three issues that aren’t necessarily all that parallel. Therefore I might reasonably be against one or two of the issues and for the third, without needing even to begin to accept any of the PRO or ANTI arguments. Furthermore, even if I agree with one of the ANTI arguments as it pertains to one of the premises, I might not think it applies to another premise, as you seem to.

In sum, I accept the ANTI arguments where I believe they apply, and not where I think they don’t. I’m able to do that by adressing the actual issues. Your post conflates three issues that are not identical, and confuses the “fundamental arguments”. Speaking of which…

I don’t think you read the meaning of my post very well, since you responded with:

I still disagree. As I said before, in the case of abortion, there is a question as to when a fetus constitutes a living being at all, hence it is not as simple as arguing about the rights of a being that is clearly living. And the issue of whether a fetus is considered a living being is quite fundamental to the issue.

In the issue of slavery vs. vegetarianism, I’d also have to say that there’s a fundamental difference: In one case we are attempting to justify not only different treatment for living beings, but for beings that are from our very own species. And we’re not trying to eat them, so those arguments don’t apply. oldscratch’s comment about “artificial seperation” is very much to the real fundamental point about slavery.

If you really believe that both slavery and vegetarianism are fundamentally the same issue, then why don’t we give cows citizenship and the right to vote? And how come we never bring up arguments about the nutritional importance of slaves?

7

**

OK.
Anti: Surely, you MUST see that (using tampons) is immoral.

Pro: Oh, for Pete’s sake, you fanatics never give up. Look, nobody’s saying that (using tampons) is pleasant, but you have to live in the REAL world. (Periods) have ALWAYS existed, and it always will.

Anti: But how can you possibly say that? A (tampon) is one of God’s creatures, and it has rights!

Pro: Cripes, you talk like a (tampon) is a human being! It’s NOT a human being! It’s a (tampon). Look, if YOU don’t want to (use tampons), fine. That’s YOUR choice. But don’t you tell the rest of us what to do (with our own bodies).

Anti: But it’s cruel! It’s barbaric!

Pro: I worry about nuts like you. You’re just like those lunatics with (in the crazy house). You think those (tampons) are more important than real people, and you’ll even resort to violence if people won’t do things your way.

Now. I worry about the sanity of anyone who can equate the above argument to the argument against slavery. Obviously, there isn’t nearly as much difference between slavery and cows and there is between slavery and tampons. But still…
what you did was take three unrelated actions and create parellel arguments for and against them. This can be done with any action in human society. That does not make all actions equally defensable.

8

Oldscratch, please show me one person who argues that tampons are God’s creatures, have rights, and that using them is barbaric. The point of astorian’s original post was that we can draw parallels between slavery/abortion/eating meat. I fail to see how this parallelism can extend to using tampons, and anyone who reads your post can realize it too. Astorian’s sentences are still sensical regardless of which of the three words you put in, yours are not.

9

Well I can’t point to specifics, but it would be the kind of person who would try and argue that African Americans aren’t human. Neither argument stands up to proof. And the point of my argument was that parrellels can be drawn among anything. Sure tampons were humuorus but I can use countless reeal world examples.
How about this one?

Anti: Surely, you MUST see that (driving cars) is immoral.

Pro: Oh, for Pete’s sake, you fanatics never give up. Look, nobody’s saying that (driving) is pleasant, but you have to live in the REAL world. (Travel) has ALWAYS existed, and it always will.

Anti: But how can you possibly say that? A (car) is a deadly machine.

Pro: Cripes, you talk like a (car) is a gun! It’s NOT a gun! It’s a (machine). Look, if YOU don’t want to (drive), fine. That’s YOUR choice. But don’t you tell the rest of us what to do (with our own bodies ).

Anti: But it destoys the environment. Thousands of people are killed by cars every year.
Pro: I worry about nuts like you. You’re just like those lunatics with (Critical Mass). You think those (bikes) are more important than real people, and you’ll even resort to violence if people …blah blah blah.

I can do it with vbegetables too. With bugs, with birds, with big game hunting. The truth is, that except for the various terms fitting nicely into the sentances there is nothing that connects them. One is holding people in involutariy bondage, one is aborting a fetus, and one is raising, killing and eating a fully grown cow.

10

Astorian – I like you!

You can present arguments using wisdom too you know.

11

Folks, I don’t buy this one either. There are entire bodies of philosophical work based on the “logic” of various moral codes. Yes, moral choices may have their roots in issues that are more a matter of opinion than a matter of objective fact, but that does not pre-empt the application of logic. The question, for instance, of whether one’s behavior is morally consistent with one’s set of beliefs, requires the application of some form of logic.

Besides, the argument about moral arguments being irrational seems to be being applied here to defend the original argument that the three issues being debated here are fundamentally alike. That happens to be a logical proposition. Saying “moral arguments are illogical” to defend it is disingenuous.

And since when is wisdom exclusive of logic?

12

I disagree. I am rationally against slavery for several reasons. One, I don’t want to be enslaved. I am in favor of a society where I cannot be enslaved. So I will voluntarily give up my opportunity to enslave others as long as they voluntarily give up their opportunity to enslave me. Makes perfect sense, right?

Also, I believe slavery would have several negative influences on the economy and society. How can we mantain things like privacy, freedom of movement, etc, when one must prove that they are a free person and not a slave? If I am a worker, I can be outcompeted by slaveowners who do not have to compensate their slaves at market rates.

Slaveholding also debases people psychologically. I don’t want to live next to someone who can imprison, beat, rape, torture, or kill other human beings with perfect legal impunity. I feel that such people are dangerous. Even if they can only legally do such things to their slaves, what if they forget? Wouldn’t they develop, ahem, “bad people skills”?

Abortion could be considered similarly. If I consider unborn babies to be people, I might rationally support protecting their right to life, since a country that protects the rights of others will also protect me, hopefully. Also, I could be concerned about the ethical issues of reproductive technology. If we allow fetuses to be killed legally, why not allow genetic manipulation? Or just about anything?

Or I could logically choose to become a vegetarian. I could feel that eating meat is unhealthy. Or I could believe that animals are reincarnated humans and that I could be eating my grandmother if I eat a cow.

Anyway, I believe that all morality can, and should be, founded on rational self interest. I can rationally choose to cooperate with people because I get more goodies when we work together, since we can play non-zero-sum games.