In a world without evil, without aggression (prosocial) there will be no avoidable deaths from malaria, there will be no abortions, and the diet will be vegan. Of all the courses of action that an individual committed to a prosocial culture can follow TODAY, which one offers us the greatest guarantee of helping to build a better world?
Those who oppose abortion come into conflict with the personal freedom of women in the context of today’s democratic culture.
We have ample evidence from the course of history that some or many animal rights advocates are not always prosocial when it comes to human suffering.
All the avoidable suffering of our fellow human beings has an unequivocal character in terms of the emotions of empathy, compassion, and affection that are the psychological basis of the non-aggressive, benevolent, and rationally introspective ethos of a possible prosocial culture that can already begin to be built today as an active minority.
The latter—along the lines of “virtue ethics”? - seems to me to be a more effective altruism.
It certainly doesn’t seem like a trivial debate to me. Thanks for the previous statements.
I understand “democratic culture” as a conventionalism referring to the consideration of rights and freedoms in Western societies (say, the European Union). The right to abortion as part of “Human Rights” is controversial in other contexts.
This is a question of cultural evolution. Infanticide was acceptable in Old Rome—but not tolerable to early Christians. It would be difficult to explain the cultural understanding of the right to life in each specific case. In my opinion, those of us interested in moral progress should put first the mutual perception of empathy and benevolence as the basis of human relations of extreme trust.
In a world without evil, without aggression (prosocial) there will be no avoidable deaths from malaria, there will be no abortions, and the diet will be vegan.
Of all the courses of action that an individual committed to a prosocial culture can follow TODAY, which one offers us the greatest guarantee of helping to build a better world?
Those who oppose abortion come into conflict with the personal freedom of women in the context of today’s democratic culture.
We have ample evidence from the course of history that some or many animal rights advocates are not always prosocial when it comes to human suffering.
All the avoidable suffering of our fellow human beings has an unequivocal character in terms of the emotions of empathy, compassion, and affection that are the psychological basis of the non-aggressive, benevolent, and rationally introspective ethos of a possible prosocial culture that can already begin to be built today as an active minority.
The latter—along the lines of “virtue ethics”? - seems to me to be a more effective altruism.
It certainly doesn’t seem like a trivial debate to me. Thanks for the previous statements.
“democratic culture” → could you elaborate why this is a cultural thing?
I take it as about equality
I understand “democratic culture” as a conventionalism referring to the consideration of rights and freedoms in Western societies (say, the European Union). The right to abortion as part of “Human Rights” is controversial in other contexts.
Could you explain how is abortion different in non democratic cultures in your opinion?
This is a question of cultural evolution. Infanticide was acceptable in Old Rome—but not tolerable to early Christians. It would be difficult to explain the cultural understanding of the right to life in each specific case. In my opinion, those of us interested in moral progress should put first the mutual perception of empathy and benevolence as the basis of human relations of extreme trust.