Originally Posted By: sinij
You are refusing to ask the question, but I will still answer it.

I subscribe to Utilitarianism

Quote:
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness". It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences.
All you had to say is that you're a moral relativist. Great. Now I know that you and I are going to disagree on almost everything. No point in talking about it further unless there is some chance you will change. I won't change because my morals are based in a fundamental understanding of right from wrong. For example, I believe that murder is wrong, therefore I cannot condone the taking of an innocent life. While you have no problem with abortion (to use an example you brought up in the last couple of posts) because you cannot measure the consequences to the child since it cannot speak for itself. (We'll just ignore the negative consequences physically and emotionally for the other parties involved)

Biology and history have no problem defining when life begins by the way. Life on earth began with single celled organisms that sprouted from an electrical charge shot through some gasses, or something similar to that, according to my biology book from last semester. Today we don't discount amoebas because they are only single celled organisms. So, given that I'll give you even one further, let's call a fetus "life" after it divides the first time into multiple cells. Then its twice as much life as a bacteria. The only people who have problems defining when life begins and what murder is are those pandering to people who don't want to be burdened with the consequences of their actions.

[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]