rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (04/10/84)
<> Replying to Vince Marchionni: >The major thrust of most of the abortion on demand belief seems to be >the selfishness of the mother and the father by comlicity. I have observed >the emphasis of secular humanism is pro individual and therefore what ever >situation ethics the individual WANTS is fine. Therefore abortion can be >justified because the individual justifies it. This is a vitriolic, and completely inaccurate, statement of the secular humanist position. It also badly misstates the position of situational ethics. >... >There is right and there is wrong and they can be shown to exist and one must >answer to a higher authority, God. > >SO THERE! Boy, that's a convincing argument, particularly the last line! Yes, there is right and there is wrong. They can be shown to exist because we define their existence, but so what? We don't AGREE on right/wrong on the abortion question. We're not even close, or this newsgroup wouldn't exist! Some may label the authority to which they answer a god, but that by itself doesn't answer any questions. >...The situational ethicist says the situation defines the answer. NO we >say. The answer for the situation must be derived higher principles... The situation does not DEFINE the answer; that's absurd. If it did, there would be NO ethical system (even a bad one). The situation AFFECTS the answer. Even in the presence of higher principles, one must understand the situation well enough to know which higher principles apply and how to apply them. -- "A friend of the devil is a friend of mine." Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086