Philosophy (Part 2)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main point FOR Philosophy (and yes, it has turned into a 'philosophy is useless' thread, not matter what your protestations, Asher) is that every social construct has been created and defined through philosophy. Every political system and ethical belief are philosophy through and through.

This argument is particularly frustrating because we've abstracted philosophy to such a general definition that it can cover anything which involves "thinking". This way we can prove that without thinking, we'd be nowhere, ergo philosophy is useful.

[KrazyHorse]

The main point FOR Philosophy (and yes, it has turned into a 'philosophy is useless' thread, not matter what your protestations, Asher) is that every social construct has been created and defined through philosophy. Every political system and ethical belief are philosophy through and through.

But this assumes a definition of philosophy which makes philosophers out of everybody who makes any decisions...which means that you still haven't proven the value of philosophy as a formal discipline.

[KrazyHorse]

Hah. Xpost with Asher.

[Jon Miller]

exactly

scientists are still natural philosophers, they just don't study formal philosophy, and don't need to

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DuncanK
frogger,

Even still. Both parents should be responsible for the child. If the father couldn't support the child by himself like he promised the mother would still be responsible to do so.

I don't think so.

Just because it's his genetic material?

The obligation to support a child comes from your decision to have the child. Period.

[Jon Miller]

I agree

Jon Miller

(but am anti-abortion for all but health reasons)

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Asher
I absolutely detested the two Philosophy of Logic courses I took.

It felt like I was back in high school when they explained obvious things to you and the people around you act like it's so hard to understand and/or profound...

Finally someone who shared the same fate. That's exactly how I felt too. Oh yeah and I've had just 2 courses too so I only heard about the basics. I sat next to total dumbass.
Btw should I read the threads?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger
Think it through, Duncan.

By not agreeing to have an abortion the woman is giving her consent to the opposite situation (where she pays and the man doesn't) once the man has made his intentions clear.

By not agreeing? The women is the only one to make the decision. There is no agreement. Her decision should be based on whether she wants the child or not, not whether the father wants to have the financial responsibilty.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I agree

Jon Miller

(but am anti-abortion for all but health reasons)

I respect that, by the way...

I just happen to disagree with it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But this assumes a definition of philosophy which makes philosophers out of everybody who makes any decisions...which means that you still haven't proven the value of philosophy as a formal discipline.

The same as history. To learn about the ideals of past great thinkers and see which ones make the most sense in the world.

In a sense you can say philosophers are the ones that make decisions, but the major decisions should be studied and dissected, and it should be shown if they are right or wrong, and then (hopefully) applied.

[Asher]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Finally someone who shared the same fate. That's exactly how I felt too. Oh yeah and I've had just 2 courses too so I only heard about the basics. I sat next to total dumbass.
Btw should I read the threads?

Not unless you want to see a bunch of people slamming philosophy, and a bunch of other people avoiding the questions and abstracting philosophy to equal "thinking" in order to paint it as useful.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Frogger


I respect that, by the way...

I just happen to disagree with it.

I agree that raising children you don't want should nto be done

but I am not sure how to fix it

there are a lot of people who want to adopt kids (that don't have drug or abuse troubles)

but I am not sure on the numbers

Jon Miller

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Frogger


I don't think so.

Just because it's his genetic material?

The obligation to support a child comes from your decision to have the child. Period.

frogger,

Our obligations are often seperate from our choices. No man is an island. We have obligations to each other, especially our family. Society has an obligation to the child, so why shouldn't the father? The father was the one who decided to have sex. He is the one who got the thrill. Someone has to provide for the child. It's either going to be the father or society. So are you saying that society is more responsible than the father? Or are you saying that if the mother can't provide for the child than the child should just do without?

[Jon Miller]

women decide to ahve sex as much as the father

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

By not agreeing? The women is the only one to make the decision. There is no agreement. Her decision should be based on whether she wants the child or not, not whether the father wants to have the financial responsibilty.

She's the only one to make the decision on the abortion. She shouldn't be the only one to be able to make the decision on whether she will support the child.

Her decision should be based on whether or not she wants the responsibility, just like the father's is.

Let us look at the possible situations:

Father wants, mother wants: no problem, same under both systems (they have the child, both are responsible)

Father doesn't want, mother doesn't want: no problem, same under both systems (abortion)

Father wants, mother doesn't want: either the father agrees to take on sole responsibility for the child or the mother definitely has an abortion (same in both systems...I'm sure there are precedents for some sort of prenatal agreement like this); if the father agrees the mother still has the fundamental right to decide whether or not she will undergo childbirth

Father doesn't want, mother wants: under the current system, the mother's decision to have the child forces the man to bear responsibility for the child which is thereby brought into being at X point in the future. Under my system, the mother has to make the same choice the father did in case 3 above, but she still retains the fundamental right to decide whether or not she will have the child or undergo an abortion.

Now compare this to the analogy I gave you ages ago. The woman has every right to decide whether or not she'll submit to modern medicine, but the man driving the car should have no responsibility to financially support her decision to forego the cheaper safe alternative in exchange for the expensive trip.