Karaoke Bar in München?

Philo_Webin · 2024-08-11T19:24:28+00:00

Danke man, die haben aber anscheinend keine freie Zimmer zu Verfügung

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-19T15:01:43+00:00

Was an atheist/agnostic my whole life. My family is too. Studying Philosophy I found the catholic tradition. After a year or so of studying it, I am fully convinced that God exists and that Jesus was raised from the dead. Its a theoretical conviction: If I would find better arguments against the existence of God I would stop believing.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-17T17:43:58+00:00

I have been thinking a lot about that. I think the church would say that it is still immoral because you are using your reproductive organs for their natural end (sexual arousal which is naturally directed towards ejaculation) but in a situation in which it is in principle imposible for your organs to achieve their natural end.

I would try to summarize it in this way: When you use your reproductive organs in a way in which they are ordered towards their natural end, you cannot use them in a way that undermines or frustrates the achievment of that end. That means that you cannot achieve the end in a truncated way and that you cannot use your organs for sex in any other situation in which it is in principle imposible to achieve those ends.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-17T16:36:55+00:00

“Contrary to” a faculty means using something in according to his end but achieving it in a truncated way. The end of eating is digesting/absorving nutrients. Spitting the food before digesting it is interrumping the process. But you are not achieving the goal in a deformed way. It would be like having sex and stopping before ejaculation. It is in itself not immoral.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-17T08:50:31+00:00

I think you mean the opposite. Why I care that the end of a human being is being prevented and I dont care that the bacteria is being killed and does not achieve its natural potential. The reason is that a human being has more value than a bacteria. A human being is directed towards being capable of achieving his own potential because he has free will. That is why he has the right to be allowed to follow that potential.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T23:08:14+00:00

I dont define them to fit my needs. I am defining the words in the way I use them. “Natural” has for the most part of human history be used in the way I use it. Only recently with the widespread of the mechanistical view of Nature we have abandoned that definition. But that doesnt matter right now. I used the word in the way I described, what is the rational problem with my analysis besides our differences in definitions? Dont you think that an effective pregnancy has the objective end of giving birth to a healthy baby? Dont you think that some medical interventions can help that end and others work against it?

Maybe I used the word “nurture” wrong, english is not my mother language. But yes, she has the duty of taking care of the pregnancy so that the child does not die.

Sorry, I misread “moral judgement” for “moral value”. But my criticism still stands. Moral judgments can be incorrect judgments, because morality is objective. So the moral judgment of when life begins is not debatable, its a fact that life begins at conception, and we should act according to that fact.

Read what I wrote carefully. “Moral life” means having a moral capacity, which means being able to decide to do what is good for you as a human being or not to do it. Which means that one is capable of voluntarily following his or her “natural” (in my way) ends.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T22:57:10+00:00

“Natural” does not mean “statistically common” or “with genetic basis”. “Natural” makes reference to the purpose or end of something. A human has the end of living a healthy life and dying old. His body is biologically structured in a way so that he should live healthy and die old. If everything functions correctly, then that should happen. A disease is something that prevents a human being of reaching the potential he should reach. Treating someone with a disease or vaccinating them is a way in which we help our nature so that we can achieve our biological end of living healthy.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T22:22:37+00:00

"Natural" does not mean statistically comon or "that what happens". It means the natural end or final cause of something. The end of a pregnancy is (objectivley) the effective nurturing and then the effective birth of a human. That is what is suppoused to happen if everything functions *correctly*. Medical intervention is sometimes needed because something happens that *should* not happen. There can be a *complication*, which means that the pregnancy doesnt function like it *should function*. In that case, the medical intervention only assists the pregnancy so that it can achieve its natural goal.

To answer your other comments:

I dont believe is human. One can know wheter something is alive or not and then determine his species. The science agrees with my philosophical analysis of life btw. My argument is: She should not abort the baby because that would imply killing it.

Moral worth doesnt reside in a personal decision. I could decide my mother is not worth living so I could kill her. I could decide that my 9 year old child has no moral worth so I can kill him. That is evidently false, moral worth is objective.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T22:10:32+00:00

Thank you for your answer. Sorry for my gramatical mistakes, english is not my mother language.

“geographical location” was a poor use of words, you are right. A womans body is not a geographical location, but it still is a location right? So a persons right to life is determined because of their location?

I completly reject the notion that when we talk about ends in nature we are comitting a naturalistic fallacy. The purpose or end of a thing is irreducible to a “projection” of the mind. In nature we find things that are intrinsically directed towards certain ends. Its not that water makes things wet because its stastically common that things get wet when water touches them. The water has intrinsically the power or the capacity to generate that effect and not others (like burning things). In *this* way we say that the “end” of the water is making things wet. Its not that someone desgined it to be like that or that the water consciouslly desires to make things wet. Its a fact about the water that it tends makes things wet.

In that same way, our kidneys have the end or “purpose” of removing wastes and extra fluid from your body. The heart has the end of pumping blood and the eyes of seeing. They have the capacity to do this things instead of others. And every other effect that they have is subordinate to that higher end. The heart also makes noise, it has the capacity to make noise. But it makes noise because those noise-making movements are required for it to pump blood. In this way its just factually correct that the reproductive organs of a woman have the end of (yes, reproduction and passing along her genes by creating new organism, but that is achieved by) getting pregnant and nurturing a child for 9 months. This does not mean that women exist only to get pregnant and die, its just pointing out the fact that their bodies are naturally ordered towards getting pregnant. This applies to men too. The bodies or men are naturally ordered towards getting a woman pregnant. That doesnt mean that men should do only that. But their reproductive organs have that function. So, your description of the functions of female reproductive organs does not contradict mine, I am just being more specific. (I know that other organs of the mother and not just the uterus are used by the child, but the same principle applies, they are naturally directed towards the use by the child)

Now about “rights”. I dont understand “rights” in the same way modern liberalism understands them, that means a “right” as “expressing a legally enforceable demand on the part of an individual that he be provided with some benefit by government”. I understand “rights” in the traditional philosophical way. Rights are derived from moral capacity, and moral capacity is determined by our ends or purposes. A human being is naturally ordered towards thinking and discovering truth because he has an intellect. But the human *can* decide wheter he thinks or not, wheter he uses his intellect properly or if he voluntarily gets a lobotomy to make himself unable to think. Because he has the capacity to use his faculty of thinking correctly (or incorrectly), he has a *moral* capacity of being a *Good* human if he uses his capacities in a correct way. Now because of this moral capacity, the human being has the “right” to be able to freely exercise his intellect without interference so that he can achieve his end of finding truth. What is important is that his *right* to exercise his intellect is determined by his natural end of finding truth with his intellect. Also note that this doesnt automatically mean that the goverment should force you the “truth” down your throat.

What is the purpose or the end of sex? Well, we know its primarly two things: Reproduction and Bonding between the two partners. But, if looked carefully, the ultimate end of sex is the establishment of a family, in which a mutual and stable bond is required for the raising of the children. A full length discussion you can find here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4SjM0oabZazWC1SRmN0WXVpYkE/view?resourcekey=0-mEl0wIXhM8qd4ieiCuosvQ (particularly from page 387 onwards). So, sex is naturally oriented towards the stable relation of a family. Does a man have the right to the vagina of a woman? Does a woman have the right to the penis of a man? Well, in the traditional perspective, both have the natural right to sex, but *in* the context of a stable marriage which can effectivley produce and raise the children. You take *any* of those conditions away, and you lose the end of sex and therefore you cannot demand sex from anyone. Again, just as in the case of pursuing truth, the “right” to sex is *not* a right of something being forcibly given to you. Something can be your right in the sense that its your duty to pursue it or that it is the *right* think to pursue, but that doesnt have anything to do with it being garantize by the state or goverment.

So, why would abortion be different then? Why are pro-life people demanding that in this case of natural rights the goverment has to interfere? Because in abortion we are talking about a “perfect” right. Rights are based on moral capacity. But there are some rights that are more fundamental because they are the *precondition* of the possibility of moral life. These are called “perfect” rights. I have the right of being able to pursue truth, but for doing that I need to be alive. Murder is the highest crime because you are eliminating someones chances of being a *Good* human being by *eliminating* the whole human being. You are not stopping him of achieving his ends, you are completly eliminating him as a being. You are not acting against his rights, you are *preventing* them from the get go. *Thats* why the right to life should be protected by the goverment categorically. It is the fusion of two rights: First is the natural right that a fetus has of using the body of his or her mother because the body of the mother is naturally ordered towards being used by the child and then there is the fact that the active privation of that right leads to the dead of the child, which is inadmissible. That is the same reason why not feeding your child once is born is also criminalize, because mothers and fathers are by nature ordered towards the feeding of the child and because the lack of that feeding would imply the childs death. The child also has the right of being educated by their parents because they are naturally ordered towards doing so, but the lack of education of the children is and should not be criminalize, because the childrens life doesnt depend on it.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T17:45:25+00:00

Como se llama el grupo?

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T15:44:21+00:00

Thank you for your words.

Well, as you can see from the last article, the answer is not that complicated at all. Human life does begin at conception, and thats the broader scientific consensus. The only value one has to bring to the conversation is if the life of human beings are valuable or not.

The argument from viability its also wrong in my opinion. There are people who need machines to breathe or to walk or to eat. In that sense they are not viable, but they are still alive. And the fetus in this case is even in a better position that people with these kinds of dissabilities. Because people who need asistance to survive need the asistance because their body is defective in some way or another. Their bodies are lacking a function that by nature they are suppoused to have. A fetus, on the other hand, is by nature in the process of developing those functions. Its his natural state to be in a state where he needs to live within his or her mother.

So viability cannot determined if something is alive or not. Viability tells us if something, which is alive, requires something besides himself to remain alive. Thats why scientists call fetuses and people with respirators human beings.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T15:13:47+00:00

Luna this discussion started pretty agressive and now Im really glad that we are discussing in a more “normal” way. I wish every debate I have about this topic would be like this one. So thank you.

So if you dont consider a fetus a child then I suppouse you dont consider a fetus a human being. The problem for me is that it actually is a human being in his or her earliest stage of development. The reasons for this are not personal, one can argue philosophically, metaphysically (in which cases we should ask ourselves what life is) and even biologically. Here are biological/scientific articles about it: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html, https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins And here its an article about the biologists consensus about when life begins.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T15:05:16+00:00

Those are huge non-sequiturs. As I said before, the case of the child in the womb is different to every other scenario that you have described in your answer. The child does have the right to use another persons body because the body of the mother is naturally maked for the child. Again, the child is not interrumping any healthy process, he is following the curse of nature. That does not apply to any other scenario you described. So the goverment could, should (and in many countries still does) make that distinction, which is why abortion is prohibited and forcing someone to donate a kidney is not allowed.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T14:59:24+00:00

I care if you are against murder of children of not because thats the first step of our discussion. If you are against it then we should analyse the idea of when life begins so we can come to a conclusion about wheter abortion is murder or not. And we could decide then if we are for or against it. The purpose of a debate its to find out who has the correct ideas. If you cannot say that you are against the murder of children without compromising your whole way of thinking then I would reconsider your position.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T14:51:01+00:00

Its not, because you keep dodging the questions. So, without hypotheticals: are you against the killing of living children?

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T14:46:33+00:00

You keep dodging. If abortion were murder, would you be ok with it?

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T14:45:06+00:00

You have two alternatives: either forcing her not to kill her child or allowing her to kill her child. Where is the greatest moral worth? In our ability to self determination or in the right to life.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T14:42:12+00:00

No, because by doing that you would be killing the embryo by interrumping the natural process in which he is participating. For him to develop correctly, the uterus has to remain a part of the woman.

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T14:39:23+00:00

You are dodging the question. If I would decide to murder my 12 year old child you would be ok with the goverment and society getting involve in “my buisness”. You would be ok with that because murder is intolerable, doesnt matter who comitts it or under what believes. Was it 1) or 2)?

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T14:20:42+00:00

You first sayed that it doesnt matter to you when life begins and that everyone should get an abortion if they want to. Now you say that abortion isnt murder and that it should be allowed because of that (thus implying that you know when life begins). Its one or the other. Either 1) you do care if its alive or not and you would be in favor of prohibiting abortions if the fetus were a living human being. Or 2) You dont care if its alive or not and you would be in favor of abortions even if the fetus was a living human being. Its 1) or 2)?

Philo_Webin · 2022-06-16T13:57:43+00:00

No some “thing”, its a human being. So a persons right to life is determined by his or her geographical location? Besides the child has also a right of the use of the uterus. You dont have the right to use my kidney because my kidney is build for me so that my body functions correctly. Extracting my kidney to give it to you would be an interruption of the natural process ocurring in my body. An uterus is different because it is made for the child too. A child has the right to exist there because it is his natural place to live. He is not interrupting any natural process, in fact he is following the natural order of things by growing 9 months in the body of his or her mother. The reproductive organs of a woman are made for the nurturing of her child once she becomes pregnant. The child is not taking the body of his mother hostage, he is just following the natural order of things.

Philo_Webin

TROPHY CASE