This One's For You, Prof....

All apologies on my long silence. I don't plan to take advantage of leniency from here on out.
Did I spell "leniency" correctly?
...

Anywho, on ethics:

The first question that struck me from the list of topics was the further discussion on Adam's question: what makes an object immoral/amoral/moral? And why?
This is actually something I believe the Bible addresses and I really want to research it further...so it will be an entire blog entry for another time.

Is there an absolute right and an absolute wrong?
I'd like to think so. If I try to wrap my mind around a world that is void of truth but merely perception, I'm nearly drowned in the pointlessness of it all. Sadly enough, though, even if one refuses to see something that exists, it still will exist. *Pokes at earlier discussion of dead cat-in-a-box*
Which is why the drama between Heaven, Hell, and humanity seems to me a tragedy.
What's more, it could be nigh impossible to prove absolute truth. That doesn't make much sense, does it?Absolute truth must be obvious if it's absolute, right? God should give us proof of absolute truth, I think, but He doesn't.
Or, really, he does, but he cursed us with "interpretation" so we could look at proof and still draw so many other conjectures that seem plausible enough to adopt as worldviews. So really perhaps faith is absolute truth.
But that would go back to relativity.
And I'm kind of going stream-of-consciousness, so excuse my lack of support or well thought-out ideas.

On to the next subject...for now.

How could I argue against abortion to a naturalist, a respect-for-persons person, and an egoist?

Natural Law: Killing babies weakens the population. Our whole purpose is to reproduce.
...that was easy enough.

Respect-for-Persons: A baby is a person. Respect the baby.
Whoops.
But when does a baby become a person? That's when the whole scientific issue comes into play which makes that argument obselete.
One could also argue that the mother, as a person, should have the right to decide whether she wants her body to go through pregnancy. So, it seems, this is a stickier challenge and should be more carefully thought out.

Egoist: Normally an egoist would say immediately that the mother needs to act in her own best interest, and if that implies abortion, so be it.
One could counter that, however, by bringing to the table the many psychological side-effects of abortion. If the mother were to go through with the procedure, would she feel any differently about it than she does now? Wouldn't it be better to go through with the pregnancy and simply give the child away to clear all possible doubts about the legitimacy of killing the unborn? These are also things to consider, but just in the range of pregnancies that would not result in possible bodily injury to the mother.



Coming up next:
All Thing Green - A Late Celebration of Saint Patty's Day!