Posted on 03/06/2007 5:39:37 PM PST by markomalley
Thanks for posting this article. Laura read this article on her show this past Tuesday, and I missed hearing who had written it so couldn't find the article. I do not dislike Rudy as a person, but this article expresses my feelings exactly. I will not vote for Rudy, and I do not believe he would win the nomination. When it comes to the Primary Election, those who are still in the race may be very different. And if the "top three" do end up being Rudy, McCain, and Romney, I believe Romney would win the nomination.
True. But that's my point. Logically, utility serves either an objectively good end or an apparently good end. But in either case, utility presupposes some end. Utility simply cannot be an end in itself. It presupposes an object or end. Therefore, "good" cannot be defined as simple utility.
Interestingly, your argument presupposes the fact that health is an objective good (even though you use scare quotes) and that running away from the police is objectively evil, because if these things are not true, your argument has no force.
Utility is the same, the ends are not.
That's true, and that's what distinguishes the morality of the two acts, one being good and one evil. That's what makes utility, considered absolutely, irrelevant to moral reasoning. What makes an act moral is the action itself, the circumstances surrounding the act, and the intention of the act. Again, if you claim that these acts are truly morally equivalent, then you undercut your argument above.
That's why the tools are only tools, and are beyond value judgment.
True. But human acts are not tools, except as they may represent a means to an end. And the acts in your example are not beyond value judgement because of the intention of the acts.
All acts are instrumental, and therefore are tools. Even unvoluntary acts, like sneezing or twitching, are instrumental, the first to respiratory, the second to muscular functioning. If somebody runs away with the money from the bank holdup, it serves his purpose [to get money]. To catch and punish him serves not his purpose, but ours. For him getting caught is not "a good". For us caching him is. That's why it is much better to use a framework in which the word "good" does not even enter. It does not have to be im-moral, just a-moral.
Goodness = utility. Good so far, but keep going.
Is the act of believing this truly good, or only instrumental for you? It must be the latter since "all acts are instrumental."
Since goodness reduces to simple utility, this belief is of use to you, but it may not be of use to others. So this belief has no objective utility or "goodness."
Your belief statement rises only to the level of a statement like, "I itch," a feeling of yours that's of no consequence to others. Neither is the statement a claim about objective reality. It's solipsistic.
If I itch, what the [insert an expletive] do I care about others, unless I were to use them as itching posts, in which case they would be good to my purpose? The whole idea of "truly good" is absurd. Whatever is considered "good" is socially, or otherwise, conditioned, and conditional. And it is not even subject to majority voting, for remember that muslims or confucians outnumber the westerners. What they see, or can see, as "truly good" does not always coincide with your worldview. No reason to abandon it, though. One could hold on, and defend, one's worldview on purely subjective, selfish grounds - and defend, and hold on, to it no less effectively.
More proof in the pudding.
The Yanar Mohammed Clinic in Baghdad, opened in 2004 in a renovated butcher shop, offers abortions free of charge paid for by US Tax Dollars.
This is another shining example of the brilliant policy of "nation-building" in Iraq.
I am disappointed, but no longer suprised. We need a pro-life commander-in-chief.
I am disappointed, but no longer suprised. We need a pro-life commander-in-chief.
Could you provide your source information because this is a new atrocity. It is getting quite difficult to keep track of all the abuses the government makes with our tax dollars.
This is a hostile website (feminist) and so there is a disclaimer on the article, but there's no indication they've changed the text of the article. I tried to confirm this as WashingtonPost.Com but couldn't find an archive pre-2006 (I'd actually appreciate it very much if someone knew how to find old 2004 Washington Post articles for confirmation).
I've also seen this referenced in Roman Catholic news releases like the Article above, and a related story on Lew Rockwell (though not regarding this particular clinic). I'll see if I can get confirmation through one of those sources.
Thank you.
Unless it was a joke we built a theme park there also. Abortion money and theme park money could and should be going to our troops like the ones in Walter Reed.
That would be a much better use of our overdrawn tax dollars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.