Post by Trojan Dorsey

very well stated and thoroughly rational. it makes sense a counter argument would involve removing morality from the premise. doing so in my view, does make the case for the immorality of the missile however, since defending the use of it requires removing oneself from moral discussion. I understand you believe this achieves some "moral consistency" but IMO that consistency is just that morality is missing from both cases (abortions and missiles) and is replaced by a measurement of their effectiveness to the goals of the State. But let me grant your counter and approach it from a purely Pavlovian position of reward/consequence. Would it be too obvious to replace the word "abortion" in your examples with "missile" as follows:

"My perspective on war and the unintended consequences of collateral damage is driven more by personal responsibility than it is morality of killing.

To elaborate, the existence of stock piles of missiles disincentivizes people to commit to family building and promotes a bleak future where people decide to "have fun" with as many sexual partners as they want before they "settle down" because "WW3" is always near.

This leads to mismanaged expectations about life and relationships, and frequently ends in broken homes and poor economic decision making.

For those reasons, I am philosophically opposed to the manufacture of more missiles and other weapons of war without ever reaching the issue of morality in decisions of life and death in foreign lands."

I believe I have established that your position that the mere existence of abortion is a driving force for a culture of irresponsibility is a slippery slope.

I hope our discussion will continue and you will totally obliterate my counter. Thus far, you are the only person on the internet willing to accept the intellectual challenge I have proposed.