This is about Morals...

[Psychonaut]

Euroblood, thanks for that explanation. I understand a bit better where you're coming from now. However, I'd like to press you on this:

The actual tenets of morality such as "Honesty" aren't directly extrapolated, but I think in some sense it is implied because it fits with our nature.

All major religions, and all major societies operate on sort of "unwritten, understood rules" such as Honesty is how our community thrives. So that is how we can derive at them. The problem does arise with our ability to choose and rationalize, because from there we go down that subjective road again.

First honesty is hardly a paramount virtue in all societies. But, more importantly, if we're talking about virtues that are Absolute (true for all peoples in all places and times) then honesty is, in my opinion a poor example.

Should a captures soldier honestly answer the questions of is captors? No, to do so would be to shame himself before his country.

Should a parent be brutally honest in appraising the artwork of small children? No, he should, for a time, praise the child for the sheer sake of providing them with loving encouragement.

Should interrogators be honest with the criminals they are interrogating? No, they should lie and manipulate the Hell out of them to do what needs to be done.

The list could go on indefinitely. It appears to me that honesty, like any other virtue is only a good thing in moderation and that hardly any moral precepts can truly be said to be Absolute. Do you agree with my critique of honesty or am I misunderstanding something about your position on what it means for a virtue to be absolute.

Does anything I am saying make any sense at all to you guys? Part of me feels like there is a major disconnect between what I am thinking and how I am presenting it

I get you. It's just that there's quite a gap between Relativism and Absolutism, and it always seems to be a bit tricky to get straight answers to pointed questions about fundamental issues from the Absolutist camp. No worries though. It's nice that you're able to defend your position without resorting to hostilities, which is more than can be said of a few others.

[Aemma]

Hi Euroblood,

Hey Aemma,
Thank you for waiting patiently for my response, I do apologies for taking so long to respond to your post.

Well Euroblood I equally want to apologise to you for my own tardiness. But I equally want to acknowledge your poise and maturity in answering these questions being pressed upon you. It might seem like we're picking on you but we're not. I'd take it rather as a nod of recognition towards your character, its strength and honesty especially. It's all good Euroblood.

It is true that in that hypothetical situation we do not know what the mother has or has not done. So it is pretty fair to say that both arguments mentioned above cancel out. However I don’t see the two acts as being connected; in the sense that since the child has done no wrong, it really doesn’t matter what the mother has or has not done.

Supposing the mother is guilty of something, there is no need to punish the child for it, and likewise supposing the mother is completely innocent of any wrong doing, the child should not be made to suffer.

But why make a supposition of guilt to begin with when looking at this issue? This is what I don't understand. Why even bring it that far? IMO it only muddles the underlying question of where one stands with respect to the value placed on a life. Not to mention the entire question as to whether the notion of 'guilt' is really appropriate in a heathen context which I don't think it is in this case.

So let's take any form of perceived guilt out of the equation altogether. Neither mom nor fetus is guilty of anything other than being in the most unfortunate situation where the life of mom and fetus are at stake and only one of them will survive procedure 'X'.

Simple question: Who lives and who dies in your opinion and why?

The first thing I should make clear is that I believe life begins at conception.

Personally I have a real problem with that whole construct of arbitrarily deciding when life begins. It has no real meaning for me as a heathen especially inasmuch as such things are determined externally of the concept of the flow of Life. Life has no beginning or no end--it is a process. Taken a step further, death is as much Life as it may be the absence of life. (Note the upper case and lower case L's ) The former, death, is a type of Other-Beingness. Additionally these constructs are more often than not fashioned based on artificial notions of Life devoid of any respect for Life As Process (as opposed to Life As Entity). They are based on mechanistic and reductionist philosophies which don't usually jive very well in a pagan/heathen worldview imho. But that might just be me; I can't speak on anybody else's behalf of course.

That being said, the act of abortion, basically implies that the fetus is not developed enough to be considered a human being. And by implication that would imply that the mother or parents think that the fetus can be killed at will.

Well 'killed' is perhaps a bit strong of a word and might not be the appropriate one. Not that I wish to use a euphemism to sugar-coat the process either mind you. But let's leave the heavy emotional language aside for a minute and call it "termination of life". In terms of the procedure of abortion and the reasons why some women and/or couples even opt to go through with this are as varied as the women and/or couples who present at the clinics, medical centres or hospitals. Is it not the right of the person who is pregnant or the couple who have created this life to determine whether or not the entering of a process of bearing, giving birth and then more importantly raising the child is in their best interest?

I'll give you a couple of scenarios to ponder...

Scenario #1: A woman is violently raped and becomes pregnant from this act of violence. She seeks an abortion. Is it wrong that she would want to psychologically and physically rid herself of the product of an act of violence?

Scenario #2: A pregnant woman becomes ill with a life-threatening illness unless the pregnancy is terminated. She is already the mother of ten children at home for whom she cares on a 24/7 basis and her husband is the sole financial provider. They are not rich and the husband/father cannot afford to lose his job or this would mean a certain economic doom to this family with far-reaching social repercussions. What is this family to do? Do these pre-existing children not count in the debate? Is there not some form of priority or is everything absolute?

I would suspect that the existence of unplanned pregnancies has been with us since time immemorial. Might it not show more character and courage to admit that one may not be fit to bear and raise a child?

But despite that fact, we have to assume there is a motivation behind wanting to get an abortion in the first place. The motivation is either something selfish, or the reaction to the consequence of some irresponsibility (irresponsible sex).

But the assumption that the motivation is based on some selfish act or the reaction to some consequence of being irresponsible is just that, an assumption. My question will always be, why make such an assumption (usually based on personal perception) to begin with? On what basis is this assumption made?

The mother on the other hand, if she chooses to abort the child is exerting her will. And we have to ask for what reason, which will inevitably go back to one of those two categories.

So you assume. But as my other scenarios point out, this assumption does not stand on all counts. I think it important to be able to see that many many more scenarios can and do exist that do not and never will fall into either of these two categories.

The reason one station seems more important than the other (I do value both stations of life though) is because every individual, including this woman who is pregnant, was at one point at the mercy of their mother. The very fact that we are alive today is because of each of our mothers. Our mothers showed us compassion by bringing us into this world, and how hypocritical it would be for us not to show our unborn the same thing.

Though I admire the overall sentiment (being a mom myself ) I think that we need to extract such debates from exactly that, the sentimentalism and emotionally-laden language that often plagues these discussions. Life decisions are based on a plethora of things but ultimately we are responsible for our own decisions and their consequences. I'm a great believer in self-determination and that each of us is responsible for our own selves all the while recognising our impact on the collective.

Life ain't simple and it was never meant to be. But it is meant to be played out however that may manifest itself.

Cheers for now Euroblood!...Aemma

[Aemma]

It's nice that you're able to defend your position without resorting to hostilities, which is more than can be said of a few others.

I heartily agree! You show great character to me already Euroblood and have impressed me already as a young man of honour. So no worries Euroblood...it's all good!

Cheers!...Aemma

[YggsVinr]

I won't add too much to this debate as I think SuuT, Ulf and others are saying a lot of what I'd have to say.

As for myself, I tend to reject that notions of absolute morality or even truth. I think that both can be viewed as constructs or pieces of a puzzle that can be psychological shifted and shaped to suit one's desires. As a result, it can become a bit of a game with one's self to systematically construct, deconstruct, and once more reconstruct one's own structures and understandings. As Loddfafner pointed out:

A society where everyone agrees on what is moral and what is not is one that is easily manipulated by politicians who promise to uphold virtue and expel vice.

The majority of the population take no effort to understand why they believe what they believe, and would ever be too frightened to consider attempting to destroy their own beliefs as well as the readily accepted governing notions of "morality" and "truth" that is often used to manipulate them. Each individual should first retreat within themselves in order to contemplate the reasons for their own beliefs on morality and truth and to hear their own inner self or conscience speak. I think Emerson is the philosoph most relevant here in his belief that the individual must first retreat within before he can go forth into community. And even within that community one must ever retreat within, while at the once exclaiming:

Do not set the least value on what I do, or the least discredit on what I do not do, as if I pretended to settle any thing as true or false. I unsettle all things. No facts to me are sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker, with no past at my back.

Often the issue is the popularization of academic debates and theories, which has ever caused issue. If we turn to the development of the notion of the individual whether in Schiller or in Joyce, we cannot, at the same time, ignore what individualism has become in the public sphere. What was once an movement and understanding developed by the seeking, contemplative minds of true individuals was turned into social propaganda in which "everyone is unique and special" and has be transformed into the spoiling of children and the deterioration of the education system. The musings of intellectual beings are ever transformed and distorted for political and social agenda, for the mindless drone who thinks himself automatically "unique" won't much care to question, for he believes he lives in a society of "unique" and "free" individuals. In many ways morality functions in the same way. While even during the middle ages, theologians and philosophers were debating to the point of atheism and questioning of certain points of morality, the institution of church made sure the population remained oblivious. Similarly, as such points of debates trickled down and there became an increasing rise in what would be come Protestantism, the subjects of debate were once more popularized, watered down, and skewed. Even in cases of "revolution" often the common man barely understands why he believes something to be morally right or wrong beyond his immediate need. But if we are to create any kind of moral values in our age that would make for a better future, we would do better than to act simply on immediate need. If we are to construct a set of morals for the creation of our own future society, we must found those morals upon a design that will stand the test of time.

Should we take the abovementioned constructed morals seriously? To a point, yes, but not to the degree that we would become inflexible and, as before, easily manipulated or unable to change our tactics to meet changing circumstances. We should be shape-changers in this respect.

Returning once more to the beginning, I can think of no greater exercise than to reduce one's self in one's mind followed by an inflation of the self; to understand one's self through different selves, so to speak. I also think that one might benefit, as schizophrenic as it might sound, from a written moral and ideological debate with one's self drawing from the argumentative style of such thinkers as Thomas Aquinas. For example, in the Summa Theologica:

First Article. whether, BEsides the Philosophical Sciences, any Further Doctrine Is Required?

We proceed thus to the First Article: -
Objection I. It seems that, besides the philosophical sciences, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: Seek not the things that are too high for thee (Ecclus. iii.22). But whatever is not above reason is sufficiently considered in the philosophical sciences. Therefore any other knowledge besides the philosophical sciences is superfluous.

Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save the true, which is convertible with being. But everything that is, is considered in the philosophical sciences - even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as is clear from Aristotle. therefore, besides the philosphical sciences, there is no need of any further knowledge.

On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. ii. 16): All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice. Now Scripture, inspired of Gd is not a part of the pihilosophical sciences discovered by human reason. Therefore it is useful that beside the philosophical sciences there should be another science - ie.- inspired of God.

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by god, besides the philsophical sciences investigated by human reason. First, because man is directed to God as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee (Isa. lxiv. 4)...etc.

Reply Objection I: Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, what is revealed by God must be accepted through faith. Hence the sacred text continues, For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man (Ecclus. iii. 25) And in such things sacred science consists.

Reply Objection 2. Sciences are diversified according to the diverse nature of their knowable objects...etc.

The importance here is the structure Aquinas uses. We should reduce even our constructed morals to this scheme by understanding what we believe or assume to know absolutely not only through our own eyes but those of our opponents, through our influences or mentors, and then to withdraw out of ourselves, or perhaps further within ourselves beyond the point of the constructed self, and to understand our own moral debate from all possible angles. The deeper one delves into the philosophy of the self, of truth, or morality the more one comes to understand that all three constructed, but this is not necessarily negative nor a disadvantage.

Just a few thoughts, hopefully it makes some sense.

[Euroblood]

Hi Euroblood,

Well Euroblood I equally want to apologise to you for my own tardiness. But I equally want to acknowledge your poise and maturity in answering these questions being pressed upon you. It might seem like we're picking on you but we're not. I'd take it rather as a nod of recognition towards your character, its strength and honesty especially. It's all good Euroblood.

Hi Aemma, and thank you I don't think you all are picking on me, we are just having a nice philosophical debate here and I happen to hold some views that may not be shared by everyone. No worries though.

But why make a supposition of guilt to begin with when looking at this issue? This is what I don't understand. Why even bring it that far? IMO it only muddles the underlying question of where one stands with respect to the value placed on a life. Not to mention the entire question as to whether the notion of 'guilt' is really appropriate in a heathen context which I don't think it is in this case.

So let's take any form of perceived guilt out of the equation altogether. Neither mom nor fetus is guilty of anything other than being in the most unfortunate situation where the life of mom and fetus are at stake and only one of them will survive procedure 'X'.

Simple question: Who lives and who dies in your opinion and why?

Although simple, it is a tough question. In an ideal world neither would die. Now without trying to assume anything (Very hard to do…), I would say if one is to live, it should be the child. Why? If the mother knows prior to giving birth that only one can survive then she must choose, and we know that the child cannot choose. Therefore I would say it is selfish to take the life of your own child to save yourself. Of course if no one knows, then the outcome would be uncertain and what will happen is not going to be up to anyone.

Personally I have a real problem with that whole construct of arbitrarily deciding when life begins. It has no real meaning for me as a heathen especially inasmuch as such things are determined externally of the concept of the flow of Life. Life has no beginning or no end--it is a process. Taken a step further, death is as much Life as it may be the absence of life. (Note the upper case and lower case L's ) The former, death, is a type of Other-Beingness. Additionally these constructs are more often than not fashioned based on artificial notions of Life devoid of any respect for Life As Process (as opposed to Life As Entity). They are based on mechanistic and reductionist philosophies which don't usually jive very well in a pagan/heathen worldview imho. But that might just be me; I can't speak on anybody else's behalf of course.

I understand where you are coming from, and while I can say that I do agree that life has many forms beyond just the biological. I try to put into context the idea that the fetus is a living being. Very often people get abortions and feel they have the right because they are living, and they feel the fetus is not living. That is all I made that statement for.

Well 'killed' is perhaps a bit strong of a word and might not be the appropriate one. Not that I wish to use a euphemism to sugar-coat the process either mind you. But let's leave the heavy emotional language aside for a minute and call it "termination of life". In terms of the procedure of abortion and the reasons why some women and/or couples even opt to go through with this are as varied as the women and/or couples who present at the clinics, medical centres or hospitals. Is it not the right of the person who is pregnant or the couple who have created this life to determine whether or not the entering of a process of bearing, giving birth and then more importantly raising the child is in their best interest?

I'll give you a couple of scenarios to ponder...

Scenario #1: A woman is violently raped and becomes pregnant from this act of violence. She seeks an abortion. Is it wrong that she would want to psychologically and physically rid herself of the product of an act of violence?

Scenario #2: A pregnant woman becomes ill with a life-threatening illness unless the pregnancy is terminated. She is already the mother of ten children at home for whom she cares on a 24/7 basis and her husband is the sole financial provider. They are not rich and the husband/father cannot afford to lose his job or this would mean a certain economic doom to this family with far-reaching social repercussions. What is this family to do? Do these pre-existing children not count in the debate? Is there not some form of priority or is everything absolute?

I would suspect that the existence of unplanned pregnancies has been with us since time immemorial. Might it not show more character and courage to admit that one may not be fit to bear and raise a child?

I’ll try not to use the strong and emotional words, but I think that in it self is a hard thing to do because we are dealing with issues that do obviously involve emotion and strong sentiment of one kind or another.

The parent or couple does have a right to figure out what is in their interest, but if another life gets involved (i.e. a pregnancy occurs) who speaks for the child’s best interest? The couple’s interests are they own, until more lives are involved, then the question is the interest of all the parties involved.

I think in scenario one, that it would be wrong for her to want to “rid herself” of the child in the womb. The reasons for this are that the child had nothing to do with this rape, mind you neither did the mother (that is why she was raped), but the child shouldn’t have it’s life terminated simply because something extremely unfortunate and painful happened to the mother. Further I must ask the question would “ridding herself” of the child really psychologically undo the damage that was done? Many women who have been raped, never became pregnant but yet they still have been extremely hurt psychologically. No woman should ever have to endure being raped, but if they are raped, I just don’t see how terminating a pregnancy will fix the problem.

Scenario two is a tough one as well because you introduced the concept of priority. The family as a whole does have to be taken into consideration, and that means all the children. The absolute still exists; unfortunately we are now confined to a choice where some wrong must exist. It is wrong to terminate that child since he existed beyond this dilemma, but it would also be wrong to neglect the current family, and leave those other kids without someone who can take care of them. The fact that there are 10 existing kids and a man ( the husband) who need this woman in their lives, means that the mother can’t be seen as selfish for terminating the child. Essentially no matter what choice was made wrongdoing will occur now it becomes a matter of which action will do more wrongdoing. So I can’t say that the fact these circumstances exist justify anything, but I see it as a choice based on motivation. In either case the mother isn’t selfish.

But the assumption that the motivation is based on some selfish act or the reaction to some consequence of being irresponsible is just that, an assumption. My question will always be, why make such an assumption (usually based on personal perception) to begin with? On what basis is this assumption made?

Well I have to say that not all abortions are based on that scenario that you presented above, and I doubt that the majority are based on something like that. Modern society today does things if it is “convenient” for them. While I no it isn’t reasonable to base every decision based on the women I’ve seen who have had an abortion, I have seen many who simply have sex and fool around without taking either precautionary measures or simply didn’t want to deal with the consequences. That is absolutely wrong if you ask me.

So you assume. But as my other scenarios point out, this assumption does not stand on all counts. I think it important to be able to see that many many more scenarios can and do exist that do not and never will fall into either of these two categories.

You are right. There is a possibility that assumption does not stand. Some scenarios may exist, but I still don’t think that those circumstances justify the termination of life. The justification comes from your motivation and as I mentioned to take the whole family into consideration is thinking selflessly.

Though I admire the overall sentiment (being a mom myself ) I think that we need to extract such debates from exactly that, the sentimentalism and emotionally-laden language that often plagues these discussions. Life decisions are based on a plethora of things but ultimately we are responsible for our own decisions and their consequences. I'm a great believer in self-determination and that each of us is responsible for our own selves all the while recognising our impact on the collective.

Life ain't simple and it was never meant to be. But it is meant to be played out however that may manifest itself.

Cheers for now Euroblood!...Aemma

Ultimately, you have to live with what you do. I too think self-determination is very important.

I heartily agree! You show great character to me already Euroblood and have impressed me already as a young man of honour. So no worries Euroblood...it's all good!

Cheers!...Aemma

Thank you again Aemma, you are very kind.

[Hrolf Kraki]

So, how do you feel about morals? Are they something you take seriously..?

I suppose I'm not quite sure what you mean by morals. Do you mean like doing the right thing? Or doing, what I guess would be, the "moral" thing? Let me explain.

Some have "morals" that insist, for example, one should stay monogomous.

However others believe in doing the "right thing" such as, for example, reporting a bank error in your favour.

I mean to say, do you see them as two like I just described or are you indeed just speaking of morals, which often times overlap, but not always.

Sorry for all the questions, I just wanna be clear before I respond.

[Aemma]

Thank you again Aemma, you are very kind.

Kindness begets kindness.

Thank you for your great post Euroblood. I better see your point of view. We might not always share the same opinion on specifics (and why should we? ) but I think in general we share some of the same values.

'Twas a pleasure discussing this with you.

Cheers for now Euroblood!...Aemma