Sunday, March 11, 2007

#9

If morality is biological, can we say that a mother who throws her baby in the trash is any more morally guilty than someone who holds in their urine? If morality is purely biological, they both are only fighting a biological instinct. Isn’t it really the same thing?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

If morality is biological, can we say that a mother who throws her baby in the trash is any more morally guilty than someone who holds in their urine?

yes we can. Obviously. :P

If morality is purely biological, they both are only fighting a biological instinct.

No one says morality is purely biological - there are various factors to consider. And surely you can see that a baby has higher "qualities" than urine... Suvival might need for you to hold your urine, but throwing a baby in the trash certainly is not condusive to survival.

Isn’t it really the same thing?

Various functions in biology does not necessarily have the same importance - we might go for long without eating while not so long without water to illustrate if you will.

How do you then bring urine to be on the same level as conceiving??

False premises does not help your case

BigTex71 said...

Yes, you can say that. A Baby cannot take care of itself and cannot crawl out of the garbage and find food, shelter, etc. It depends on the mother (or someone capable) to provide these for it. So the mother is attempting to murder the child.

Someone who holds in their urine is consciously fighting against a natural biological urge. The body has to expel waste in some way, and it requires a conscious fight on the person's behalf to stop this. If one is unconscious, they will relieve their bladder because the body will allow this to occur unconsciously.

So the person who holds in their urine will eventually expel it as soon as they lapse into unconsciousness, either by sleep, passing out of exhaustion, etc.

But the person will not save the child from the trash unconsciously.