We have been pretty quiet on the Culture War front lately, I think you should go ahead!Originally Posted by Catgrrl
PS Wiggin: That's pretty much what I mean when I say science exists above ethics.
We have been pretty quiet on the Culture War front lately, I think you should go ahead!
PS Wiggin: That's pretty much what I mean when I say science exists above ethics.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I'm with Wiggin on this, as useful as it might be to use science for the 'benchmarks' of when something is a person... it's only useful after you've determined what personhood is.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Dread, you're looking at the wrong part of the map. You're looking at the wrong questions, and perhaps that's partly why you're talking right past me and/or missing what I'm saying. I am not asking "when does life begin?", in this thread. I'm not saying I can answer that question. Please re-read my posts, and if I've misspoken then permit me to correct myself.
I don't dispute that science--and rational thought--can give, at best, somewhat ambiguous answers to many questions about reality.
An example would be a question such as, "What is life?" This is a difficult question that has no perfect answer. The waters are muddled by ambiguous cases such as viruses, prions, scifi creatures, etc. Is a virus alive? Is a prion alive? The best rational answer we can hope for is something along the lines of, "Sorta. Maybe."
But if we were to ask ourselves, "Is a lump of granite alive?" it'd be much easier, and you'd be hard pressed to find a single scientist or non-scientist who'd think it reasonable to base a law on the assumption that a lump of granite is alive.
There are other such questions. For example, what is "human"? Where do we draw the line between eg. humans and chimps, or humans and our ancestors? For that matter, where/when do we draw the line between any two species? This is a difficult question to answer. How do two species differ when they're both alive and have in common their basic building blocks as well as much of their genetic information? Fundies on CC used to go on and on about this problem.
Despite these difficulties, we can answer questions such as, "Is a daffodil a human?" or "Is a monkey a horse?" and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd enforce a law (or do anything important) based on the assumption that a daffodil is human.
Further down this rabbit hole we find some of the most difficult questions of all. What is consciousness? When in our development do we become conscious? Is it at 20 weeks after conception? Is a monkey conscious? Is a bat? There are a million such questions, and they're very difficult to answer. I can't tell you precisely when a foetus may become aware in some sense. I can't tell you precisely when we should think of a foetus as being a living entity separate from its mother. I can't tell you what consciousness is. I know this, you know this, Wiggin knows this.
Consciousness or awareness, in one form or another; agency; the possession of some sort of phenomenology; being an "I"... our understanding of that phenomenon is incomplete, but it is nevertheless the linchpin of "personhood". It's central to almost all our discussions about ethics, justice, rights but we can't exactly define it or explain it.
Nevertheless, there are some questions a scientist (and many philosophers and lay-people) can answer about consciousness with near-total certainty and with great authority within their respective frameworks of knowledge. One such question is, "Does human awareness exist totally independent of the human nervous system?" This is the ancient issue of the immaterial and independent soul, the ghost in the machine. Can I be an I without any nervous system? Never mind Alber's fantasy future--what do you think science says?
Someone gives you a human skin cell, or a sperm cell, or a finger, or a kidney. It's life in some sense of the word. It's human in some sense of the word. Is it conscious? Is it a person?
That's the sort of question at issue here. Look at the OP. The proposal is to define a fertilised egg as a person.
I'm not fretting about religious insanity or stupidity, although no doubt the most partisan among you will refuse to believe that. I'm fretting about what this proposed law seeks to do, which (in my view) is one or more of the following:
1. Remove consciousness, the self, from the concept of personhood (while apparently retaining criteria such as "life" and "human").
2. Use legislation to establish as truth the thoroughly discredited religious and philosophical position that consciousness does not require a nervous system.
3. Selectively and inconsistently choose to treat something as being what it might become.
I don't fret about these things because I think science is normative. I fret about them because I don't want a modern legal system to enforce that sort of inconsistency and non-rationality. To me it's akin to the state enforcing eg. a law that's based on the assumption that the Christian God is real and the Bible is literally 100% true.
She was in a persistent vegetative state. She wasn't totally brain-dead. Her doctors and her husband were in agreement that she was not aware. Her parents contested that she was aware and some agreed with that. There was controversy, although it was perhaps not entirely what you're making it out to be. Congress overreached, and many (most?) didn't like that at all. A few people managed to keep the courts busy. In the end it came down to awareness, what she may have wanted, and her husband's right to act as her medical proxy. I'm not going to pretend that it was cut-and-dried, but you shouldn't pretend that it has much bearing on whether or not a fertilised egg is a personActually, Schiavo's case was resolved with extreme difficulty. Our President signed a silly law to prolong her life. I believe it's the first time a law was specifically written to address one person's situation. And the issue went to our Supreme Court, who declined to hear it.
And I mainly brought it up to demonstrate how crazed people can get about situations where they are concretely forced to define personhood. There were, after all, former medical professionals in our Congress.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
We've been quiet on that front of Culture War because the theists on here are quite tired of the abuse, thanks.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It's not really above ethics; it's in a separate plane from ethics. There is no way to use science to answer questions of ethics, though it could be used to provide evidence in support of or opposition to a given opposition. To use my field as an example, I can tell you the consequences of war, in terms of life or money, but I can't tell you whether it is moral to fight wars or whether it's moral to fight wars for reason x but not reason y. Now one can create criteria for whether something is immoral, and one can use science to decide whether wars meet those criteria, but the very imposition of criteria and the willingness to accept them are issues that are outside the purview of science.
Hope is the denial of reality
How is it misleading? That implies it's somehow deceptive, and I really don't understand how anyone can think I was being deceptive. I was acknowledging the intense level of debate that exists in defining "personhood" and sustaining life at much later stages of pregnancy. I brought it up to demonstrate how these questions don't get any easier as a pregnancy proceeds.
To echo Fuzzy, WTF. Wiggin makes the same essential point Fuzzy and I were making (albeit more verbose and detailed) and that's it?
I mean, for fuck's sake:
Vs.
I start wanting tax reform and suddenly people just instinctively jump down my throat.
Last edited by Dreadnaught; 11-01-2011 at 12:24 AM.
And the general atmosphere of nastiness and go-smell-a-pig's-ass shouldn't extend to believers because...?
Yeah? (What I mean to say is, how's this disagreeing with what's been said)
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I start wanting tax reform and suddenly people just instinctively jump down my throat.
It's your own My First Martyr starters kit.
I disagreed with you that the discussion is: 'when does life begin', and argued it should be 'when does personhood start'. I still think this is the case. I asked you what your definition for a person would be and gave you room to 'freestyle', as in I was not going to "instinctively jump down your throat", as you so moaningly put it, with some definition which I believe to be the last word in the matter. It was just a question.
And that's it. You may have made points that coincide with Wiggin's post. I have made points that coincide with Wiggin's post, as did Fuzzy. I judged it an excellent post because he put it better than any of us did.
But he didn't comment on what a person is, just said it's a difficult concept to graps, and we all agree I believe. As you may remember, I called the definition I pasted in that article "one of the best I've run across", not the end-all definition that closes the book on the discussion. He didn't comment whether the discussion should be "when does life begin" vs "when does a fetus become a person". just that these are semantic discussion.
Lastly, by linking this butthurtiness to your desire for tax reforms, you are enforcing the stereotype of the G.O.P. Special Victim Unit. For your own sake, cut it out.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
That does not make any sense. You can't use science to decide something, but you can use science to decide something.
Because you're lumping all kinds of stuff together.
I argued that personhood cannot exist without an active brain (i.e. not braindead). You promptly conjured up Terry Schiavo which a) demonstrated the fact that you do not know what "braindead" is and b) completely missed the point of the argument, presumable due to a).
When a brain is active, it can still be argued if the possessor of said brain really (still) is a person, like Schiavo. But before and [/b]after[/b] brain activity, there simply cannot be a person - because all personal activity is inextricably linked to brain activity. Again, before a certain point, there simply cannot be a person. After that point, the point is arguable.
So, please stop to muddle the water by trying to conflate both sides into one. Unless you now want to convince us that a tree is a person.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Science is just a tool to measure whether the criteria you have set are met, but it's not the tool to use to determine those criteria. There is no scientific formula dictating morality.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Ah, great. And what would be "morality" then in that fuzzy sense we're throwing around here? Something that falls from the sky? Which comes about without rational thought?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
See the Justice thread
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Rationale can play a big part in morality. But it's also subjective. Is there a universal morality? Is the morality we have adopted in the West, THE morality? Is yours? Can it differ from mine? Is all morality derived from rational thought, or does it also have origins in irrational traditions and culture or maybe even personal experiences.
It's a difficult question you ask.
*curiously wonders off to the justice thread*
edit: Oh that thread.
edit 2: When in doubt; Stanford. Then you'll doubt even more.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
No, you're right. Science is a magic tool that works for every problem and answers every question.
Woohoo! Rational!
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
I just meant my personal tangent is more of a Gen Discussion than a true D&D material.
It's disagreeing wit the assertion made by several here that defining what constitutes personhood is somehow a scientific question.
Ok, the main conception of a moral war in IR comes from the just war tradition (created by St. Augustine and later developed by St. Aquinas and others). Please tell me in which way that tradition does or does not meet scientific standards.
Hope is the denial of reality
I must have missed those assertions. I certainly hope you didn't imagine yourself arguing against me
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Hard to follow a great post like wiggin'sbut I'll try.
Human intervention (commission) has changed dramatically over time, with all that science and technology brings us. It's even re-defined how we view a "natural course" of things by doing nothing (omission). There's an inherent ethical danger in trying to define biological Life, without realizing what that means to every living thing. It's only humans that make these distinctions, and we tend to view it from our subjectively human definitions.
Being in a "vegetative state" is a great example. The brain isn't dead, the organs aren't dead, but we take great care to not to actively kill that person as if they're a head of lettuce. Instead, we continue to tube-feed, bathe, and comfort that body. Either out of respect for some belief in a soul or sub-conscience being, hiding in that body, or simply because they're still human...even if their existence isn't what we'd call Living Life. In fact, we go out of our way to use science and technology to keep them alive, even if the hope is to Harvest their organs.
Starving or dehydrating a "vegetative" person by omission is very different from injecting them with terminal meds by commission. That would be assisted suicide. Not many want to confront these ever-changing lines of Life. The ethical dilemmas are often the same, though, and that's where the religious demands enter. Sperm is 'alive', so using a condom was seen as an active act to prevent Life; ova are 'alive', so any woman using new-fangled scientific birth control, like hormone pills or barrier methods, was actively preventing Life. Stem cells and fertilized embryos are 'alive', so we shouldn't test them in clinical environments. According to the Vatican, anyway.
Science and Religion collide all the time. Always have, always will. What I have to ask, though....is why politicians think a constitutional amendment to define "Personhood" is any different than what Vatican I or II has done in the past?
What always surprised me about the Schiavo case was the argument that 'people shouldn't interfere with life' by ending it.. What is medical science, if not that? If anything, keeping someone artificially alive is going against god's plan.
This is one of the arguments I presented to Dread re. human meddling in "the inevitable". It is possible that there's an asymmetry here, such that intervening in order to end life is worse than intervening to "save" it. Human life of course. People.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
As Minx said, I'm not sure that assertion has been made per se; science exists above ethics and morality (or to the side of it, if the value-laden terminology bothers you), so if a communist society decides that political criminals need only eat the bare minimum, we can use scientific means to determine just what is the bare minimum, or if a National Socialist society decides that Jewish people, or people with the blood type B, are non-human for legal purposes, we could use scientific means to determine the blood type or racial characteristics (although said characteristics would have to be defined politically, not scientifically, but once laid out I'm sure their determination could be an endeavour that utilizes science), and similarly once our society decides just which characteristics, say physical ones, constitute personhood, we can use scientific means to gauge whether this or that meets said criteria. But you are correct, the National Socialist ideas on legal personhood aren't any less arbitrary than ours from the researcher's point of view, because ultimately we place value on things that are by their nature arbitrary (the concept of awareness, concept of racial purity, whatever).
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Can't say I disagree with anything here.
Hope is the denial of reality
We're supposed to fight, damnit
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I doth protest your slanders.
Hope is the denial of reality
How is a "WTF" an echo of what I said? You're getting to be as bad as GGT when it comes to twisting and misusing what I post. What I wrote was crappy, poorly worded, and I don't see how anyone could reasonably grasp what I was trying to say from it.To echo Fuzzy, WTF. Wiggin makes the same essential point Fuzzy and I were making (albeit more verbose and detailed) and that's it?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Okay, okay. I give up
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Ok. Who are you guys and what have you done with the real guys?
Well fine. If y'all going to be like this
I'm sorry Dread for the martyr joke. There.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
I thought it was in very poor taste not to mention entirely misguided. After all, Jews are better known for martyring others, not themselves
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Which is why medical science and all non-recreational drugs ought to be outlawed immediately. I'm sick and tired of unnatural abominations whose very existence is contrary to God's plan getting in my way when I'm trying to speed on the freeway.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Actually, using that logic, speeding on the highway would be even more unnatural. After all, God surely did not intend us to exceed running speeds, now, didn't he?
Which is why medical science and all non-recreational drugs ought to be outlawed immediately. I'm sick and tired of unnatural abominations whose very existence is contrary to God's plan getting in my way when I'm trying to speed on the freeway.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
