an unborn fetus has no bodily autonomy -- it is fully imprisoned within the womb
🇳🇱
So is the logic here that when a person is physically/medically confined to a space they should loose all rights to bodily autonomy, including one's right not to be intentionally killed by another?
I am not disagreeing with you by the way, just trying to understand the logical precedence you are trying to create.
I wasn't talking about a right to autonomy, but the physical reality of being unable to survive outside of the womb
Right, we moved on from the general case of autonomy to the specific case of right to life (killing). As you point out as far as bodily autonomy goes since a fetus is entombed in the womb I would tend to agree, the main significant issue of bodily autonomy really is just reduced to, does a fetus have a right to life or not.
So I am perfectly happy talking about "do we have a right to kill this entity" as a more simplified point for debate that is also entirely equivalent to the original point.
That said I am still very much at a loss as to what your position is from my last question where I was trying to understand it (but the response didnt help me).
ultimately, there is no right to life
we survive until we don't
Ok so is the rule there is no rule? Anyone can kill anyone at any time. You have a right to life if you manage to survive?
Again that would satisfy my question, though it doesnt mean I agree with the answer, as I would not agree to that moral code myself.
clearly, within physical limits, anyone can kill anyone at any time -- are you speaking here of a matter of law, common social acceptance?
I am speaking in terms of what the moral/right/just answer is... one could say this is what law **should** be rather than what it is. But some people might argue law should not be morality but rather punishment for harm.
law as a social code ought not be based on some possibly temporary or local idea of morality, but on the common understandings of the people affected from all perspectives
I am not suggesting a subjective morality but rather an objective one.. we all just happen to have different opinions on what that is. As with everything objective, what qualifies as objective is a subjective process.
The earth is objectively round, I have subjectively arrived at that conclusion.
That is not particularly far off from my own definition.
I seperate moral intent and moral outcome:
Moral intent - Any action that has the intent of increasing the happiness to suffering ratio in the world
Moral outcome - Any action which increases the happiness to suffering ratio cumulatively over an infinite amount of time (basically the indefinite integral)
Its just a very technical way of saying you put less suffering int he world.
To me peace is certainly an element that gets you there but is not the full picture when it comes to morality.
@freemo @JuliusGoat
ideally, morality is about being able to live peacefully with others