This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is it accurate to say that pro-choice people are more consequentialist?

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. Is it accurate to say that pro-choice people are more consequentialist?
2 years ago#1
By the definition of moral consequentialists, they judge the correctness of an action by the consequences it brings. Strictly pro-life people say there is only one correct choice in any case. Being pro-choice puts little relevance in the choice and more relevance into what the outcome would be for the choice. I also have to wonder if being more morally consequentialist means you support greater freedom of choice overall as a result.
---
I want Snowden DLC for Watch Dogs
2 years ago#2
Probably yeah. Not all need to take a consequentialist view of it. It could simply be they value people over potential people and so it is the choice that is more important than the consequence of it. Very few on the pro-life side seem to care about the consequences at all though.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
2 years ago#3
CC Ricers posted...
By the definition of moral consequentialists, they judge the correctness of an action by the consequences it brings. Strictly pro-life people say there is only one correct choice in any case. Being pro-choice puts little relevance in the choice and more relevance into what the outcome would be for the choice. I also have to wonder if being more morally consequentialist means you support greater freedom of choice overall as a result.


Hmmm... I don't think so.
I think most "pro-lifers" owe their position to religiously-rooted deontological ethics, but that doesn't mean that their opponents on the issue are all consequentialists.

Most pro-choice libertarians, after all, root their support for abortion rights in largely non-consequentialist ideas about personal integrity, property rights, and freedom to make important choices for oneself.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
2 years ago#4
As a whole, maybe, but there are consequentialist arguments against abortion and deontological arguments for choice.
---
http://www.last.fm/user/Brettyb16
2 years ago#5
Even a strictly self-interested consequentialist would take up Pascal's wager. The pro choice side delights in abortion, the act itself.
---
Hero/Legend of 261. Lover of life, free speech, etc.
Providing trickle-down knowledge since 2009
2 years ago#6
TaiIs82 posted...
Even a strictly self-interested consequentialist would take up Pascal's wager.


So it's rational to pick one religion over all the others to support, when they're all equally unsupported by evidence?
---
Zombie Clement Attlee 2015 --- (Zombie) FDR/Sanders 2016
If you want friends in Washington, get a lobbyist - me
2 years ago#7
TaiIs82 posted...
Even a strictly self-interested consequentialist would take up Pascal's wager. The pro choice side delights in abortion, the act itself.


http://www.plognark.com/Art/Sketches/Blogsketches/2008/thestupiditburns.jpg
---
We Endorse The Creation of Majora's Mask 3D:
http://www.facebook.com/OperationMoonfall
2 years ago#8
Nitro378 posted...
TaiIs82 posted...
Even a strictly self-interested consequentialist would take up Pascal's wager.


So it's rational to pick one religion over all the others to support, when they're all equally unsupported by evidence?


I wouldn't say they're all equally unsupported.
Some religious beliefs are merely unsupported by evidence. Others are in the teeth of it.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
2 years ago#9
TaiIs82 posted...
Even a strictly self-interested consequentialist would take up Pascal's wager. The pro choice side delights in abortion, the act itself.


Why would all consequentialists automatically assume there is more to be gained with the belief of a God? The Christian dogma is often rooted in deontological ethics.
---
"coal and oil is bad for the environment. by taking it out of the environment and using it we are helping" - 765351
2 years ago#10
There recently was a study that showed that liberals tend to judge morality based on consequences whereas conservatives/religious people tend to judge based on rules.

So yeah.
---
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. Is it accurate to say that pro-choice people are more consequentialist?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived