An Absolute Right to Abortion?

[toddjh]

I fail to see how this assumption rules out abortion; it sounds more like a puritan, judgmental "if you don't want babies, don't have sex" approach. I doubt that any sane woman considers abortion a practical form of contraception, it's simply the final line when pre-emptive solutions, like condoms and e-pills fail.

Again, I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a person with legal rights. I don't personally feel this way, and I have no problem with first trimester abortions.

But yes, I do feel that people are irresponsible when it comes to sex. I don't think it's judgmental; simply practical. Common forms of birth control just aren't that effective over long periods of time. Like I said, I don't see why a woman's protests that she should be exempt from responsibility because she didn't intend to become pregnant should be taken any more seriously than a gambler's protests that he should get his chips back because he didn't intend to lose.

Jeremy

 

[RandFan]

I would also like to make clear that I don't believe that semen, egg or that the joining of the two constitute distinct and separate human life and should enjoy all rights and privileges associated with being a person. I think the notion beyond silly and that it would be difficult to arrive at such a conclusion outside of religious philosophy. I'm for first trimester abortions and even 2nd and 3rd in specific instances.

What I stand against is the notion that a fetus is not a person or has no rights simply because it is located inside of another person.

It seems to me that such a policy is the most beneficial to the most people. A woman who becomes pregnant has the responsibility to avail herself of available medical care and terminate the pregnancy if she so chooses in the first 3 months. If circumstance arise after the first trimester then certainly exceptions can be made. Thereby she has control of her body when the fetus is not viable. This provides the greatest utility to all parties assuming the baby is a party and I do.

 

[Bone_Vulture]

But yes, I do feel that people are irresponsible when it comes to sex. I don't think it's judgmental; simply practical. Common forms of birth control just aren't that effective over long periods of time. Like I said, I don't see why a woman's protests that she should be exempt from responsibility because she didn't intend to become pregnant should be taken any more seriously than a gambler's protests that he should get his chips back because he didn't intend to lose.

Would you be willing to go for a compromise where state healthcare provided abortion would be suspended if a woman wishes to terminate the pregnancies repeatedly? I think the expense of having to use more costly private clinics would be a good way of promoting responsibility and freedom of choice in a balanced manner.

 

[Thanz]

I analyze this issue in a very different way than most. For me, the entire notion of "personhood" is a philosophical tangent leading essentially nowhere. It's not concrete; it's abstract. The government doesn't do well with abstract.

In my view, a person should have total autonomy with respect to his/her body, as well as what grows inside it. Whether the entity inside my body is a tumor, pheasant or person, that entity is my personal property by virtue of the fact that it is growing within my body. Only when the entity leaves my body does it become autonomous and no longer my property. Yes, looking at things through this prism, I was my mother's personal property for 9 months, analogous to a book or a shoe.

Because of this reasoning, I oppose every conceivable abortion restriction. I oppose parental consent, parental notification, mandatory waiting periods, mandatory counseling, partial-birth bans and every other potential restriction that could be conceived of. I can safely say that I am more pro-choice than 50% of NARAL members, at least. And, for me, it all comes down to personal ownership over one's body, and everything growing within it.

With respect, you haven't avoided the issue of personhood at all. By saying that the foetus is the personal property of the mother you have decided that the foetus is not a person, unless you believe in slavery. And the reason that you give is that it is inside the other person's body. Really, a reason that is unique to pregnancy. It doesn't help at all with regard to whether the foetus is a person. I agree with todd that this is the central question in the abortion debate. I would say that from whatever point you believe the foetus is a person, abortion is not justified except in very narrow circumstances (the life of the mother, for example).

 

[Thanz]

[with regard to babies]It's not important in and of itself, it's important because it is important to a human being with thoughts and feelings.

I see only a few possible reasons for your post, in suggesting that infant life is not important in and of itself (and in saying that this is true for any system of ethics that withstands scrutiny):

1) You are taking an extreme position for the purposes of debate, and don't really believe this.

or

2) You actually believe this, and therefore:

- you haven't read Kant, or you have read and don't understand Kant, or for some strange reason think that his system of ethics hasn't withstood scrutiny;

- you don't have any kids of your own

- you are a twisted, heartless bastard, and will probably die bitter and alone.

 

[luchog]

To toddjh, I don't think we should just automatically classify the killing of a foetus as murder because it is a Human - murder is a legal term, and there are occasions on which we may kill people without it being murder. At risk of more flawed analogy, we can kill in self defence, in war, or the state execution of a criminal. Even if we accept the foetus as Human, the question would become one of how we would choose to categorise the killing of a Human foetus, it wouldn't automatically fall into one category or another.

Assuming that a foetus is a person...

How is killing a foetus an act of self- or national-defense?

How is a foetus capable of committing a crime worthy of capital punishment (Multiple murder, treason, etc.)?

I cannot see any way to justify the killing of a foetus, or any person, on any other grounds. To say that such grounds are justification for killing an unborn person requires some convoluted justifications that bugger logic. No foetus is a conscious threat to anyone. There are a few cases where, for strictly medical reasons, a pregnancy could be fatal for the mother, and thus abortion could be justified on those grounds. Aside from that, I'd like to see anyone manage to coherently justify it on any other.

This actually raises a troubling point that has occurred to me on occasion. There are occasional efforts to push back the time limit on abortion on the grounds that the foetus can survive outside the womb now that technology has advanced. But technology will eventually advance to the point where you could take a fertilised egg straight out of the fallopian tube or uterus via some ten minute keyhole surgery and stick it in an artificial womb where it goes right through to term. So would abortion be justifiable under those circumstances,? My gut level emotional response is yes, it should, the woman's right to control over her body is absolute. But I'm not sure how I would justify that on logical grounds.

This is a very old red herring. Technology isn't the issue. No baby is capable of surviving on it's own, it needs to be cared for by someone for quite a few years afterwards. The issue of technology as regards to foetal viability was originally introduced to the debate to counteract the pro-abortion use of "viability" as indicative of personhood. Since "viability" depends exclusively upon the available technology; it's not a legitimate measure of personhood. The closest I've seen anyone come to a useful definition is based brain-wave activity.

And rights are never entirely absolute; particularly when the infringement of another person's right to life is at stake.

 

[MrFrankZito]

So how do you know whether to confer this subjective preference on another being? You need to define "human." Is another being human because he is biologically similar to you? Genetically similar? Socially similar?

I hope you can see the problems inherent with the latter two. Genetic similarity would preclude abortion right from the start. And using social status to determine humanity...well, I hope I don't need to explain why that's a bad, bad idea.

Even if you only attach value to humans because you're one yourself, biology is the only rational means to determine who else is human. We can narrow it down further: it's specifically the brain which determines humanity, unless you're prepared to side with the Terri Schiavo nutjobs. So it still amounts to the same thing.

Jeremy

Why should I make an important philosophical decision regarding abortion based upon my subjective speciocentricity? It seems to me that, when making important philosophical decisions, one should always analyze the issue from the objective viewpoint. Objectively, a human being and a blade of grass have an equal life value, by virtue of the fact that humans and grass are both on the same Tree of Life. This renders the whole issue of "personhood" moot; I deny an objective difference in life value beween humans and other animals/plants on the Tree of Life. I simply see no hard evidence that humans have an intrinsically, objectively higher life value.

As such, I revert to my original position: My body is my property. Any entity--whether bacteria, pheasant or human--that is inside my body is my property. As such, a woman's unborn fetus is her property. Therefore, a woman has an absolute, unrestricted right to abort, for any reason, at any time during the pregnancy, including the final trimester.

By the way, I know I have a minority viewpoint on this issue. It's a tough one for alot of people. Thanks for the thus-far very interesting, civil, polite debate! I respect all of your positions on this challenging subject.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I see only a few possible reasons for your post, in suggesting that infant life is not important in and of itself (and in saying that this is true for any system of ethics that withstands scrutiny):

1) You are taking an extreme position for the purposes of debate, and don't really believe this.

or

2) You actually believe this

I'll take #2, thanks.

and therefore:

- you haven't read Kant, or you have read and don't understand Kant, or for some strange reason think that his system of ethics hasn't withstood scrutiny;

Rather I think that rocks, fetuses, infants and rats aren't necessarily the kind of entities which it is appropriate to have a Kantian relationship with.

- you don't have any kids of your own

Correct but not really relevant. I might as well say "You think that it would be a bad idea to play a game of chicken, but you see, you aren't drunk. If you were drunk you would realise it is an excellent idea".

- you are a twisted, heartless bastard, and will probably die bitter and alone.

That or a couple of your ideas about morality are irrational but you are nonetheless very, very attached to them. So much so that you really cannot believe that someone could be a happy, moral person with a wonderful long-term relationship if they disagree with those particular ideas.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is just rhetoric. But I do appreciate your opinion. I can't see any reason to agree and you certainly have given us none.

The idea was that you would try to explain to us all why entities which happen to be members of the human species human but which have no other characteristics that make it reasonable to set them above, say, a rat or a sheep, should be considered morally valuable in their own right the way a normal adult human is.

If you try to do it without invoking God, naked speciesism or philosophically confused appeals to "potential" you will, I think, find it a very difficult job.

To you and to you only.

Like I said, try coming up with a coherent system of moral values that generates different results.

But this does not tell us anything. It is and it isn't, which is it and why?

This is mildly tricky ground, so you are going to have to read things carefully. Maybe a few times, even.

I am repeating myself now, but the distinction in play is "valuable for its own sake" versus "valuable only because it is valued by a being which is valuable for its own sake". An axe is not valuable in and of itself. It is not murder to break an axe. However it would be wrong to gratuitously break an axe if it had sentimental value to a human, or if a human depended on that axe to perform useful or necessary work.

You make unsubstantiated claims. It is nether unhygienic nor inefficient. Take baby, boil, eat. Couldn't be any more hygienic or efficient.

Human meat is a biohazard unless you cook it very thoroughly. Beef or chicken are much safer. Raising humans, a slow-growing omnivorous predator, for food is terribly inefficient compared to raising grazing animals for food which is in turn usually less efficient than growing crops for food.

(Some land just isn't well suited to agriculture, of course, so in those cases raising animals is energy-efficient).

Why would it lead to a world that is horridly suboptimal. Odd choice of words. Please explain?

A world where we grind up the babies of the overpopulated parts of the world to provide a tiny, inefficient food source for the people of the poorest parts of the world is, in a generation's time, going to be a poorer place than a world where we relocated some people from crowded areas and relocated from food from overfed places. That's all I'm saying. It's a dumb solution to a problem.

Humanity isn't a scoreboard. We don't decide who is human and who is not human based on a scale. You and other eugenicists might but the vast majority of the rest of us don't for one very good reason. History has demonstrated time and again that it is very easy to change the scale and those who are human today can easily become subhuman tomorrow.

False dichotomy.

Our options are not limited to irrational speciesism on one hand and irrational prejudice on the other.

 

[RandFan]

The idea was that you would try to explain to us all why entities which happen to be members of the human species human but which have no other characteristics that make it reasonable to set them above, say, a rat or a sheep, should be considered morally valuable in their own right the way a normal adult human is.

I don't see the need to justify the morals of society based on the theory of morally "valuable" humans (Kantian I presume). I'm not sure why you do. I'm afraid you are alone on this one.

If you try to do it without invoking God, naked speciesism or philosophically confused appeals to "potential" you will, I think, find it a very difficult job.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with speciesism. Humans evolved to protect their own kind and particularly children. If our offspring die we as a species die. If we accept that we are the product of evolution both genetic and social then we can understand how and why morals evolved to protect our offspring and perhaps also how our innate sense evolved to protect our progeny. It only makes sense that genetically and socially we would be equipped to protect our offspring. How long would a species like humans survive if there was not a parent to protect it? Male lions will try to eat their offspring. This is why the mother avoids males after birth.

Is there any question that our innate sense of right and wrong would include the protection of babies and infants?

Is there any question that such a sense would propel humans to construct morals to protect babies and infants?

Is there anything about morals that include the protection of our offspring that is counter to our survival or human evolution?

I am repeating myself now, but the distinction in play is "valuable for its own sake" versus "valuable only because it is valued by a being which is valuable for its own sake". An axe is not valuable in and of itself. It is not murder to break an axe. However it would be wrong to gratuitously break an axe if it had sentimental value to a human, or if a human depended on that axe to perform useful or necessary work.

But why do mammals care so much for their young? Could genetics and evolution offer any clue? Could babies be valuable to parents because they are important to the survival of the species? And since parents value babies and infants does it not stand to reason that a society that is governed primarily by parents would evolve morals that included the protection of progeny?

Human meat is a biohazard unless you cook it very thoroughly.

So is pork.

Raising humans, a slow-growing omnivorous predator, for food is terribly inefficient compared to raising grazing animals for food which is in turn usually less efficient than growing crops for food.

You don't understand my meaning. You see the solution is simple and not completly without precedent. You only use those that are in excess. We don't need to start baby farms. When the heard needs thinning we simply go in and cull them, using the meat rather than wasting it. Happens all of the time for bears, dear and other mammals.

A world where we grind up the babies of the overpopulated parts of the world to provide a tiny, inefficient food source for the people of the poorest parts of the world is, in a generation's time, going to be a poorer place than a world where we relocated some people from crowded areas and relocated from food from overfed places. That's all I'm saying. It's a dumb solution to a problem.

It's not dumb at all (assuming no revulsion to killing and eating babies). Simply cull the excess and save on disposal by providing the meat as sustenance.

False dichotomy.

Where?

Our options are not limited to irrational speciesism on one hand and irrational prejudice on the other.

I never said they were. I simply reject the notion that there is some scale that determines what makes a human worthy of living to other humans. You do. All humans are deserving of being considered human regardless of value. This is not irrational. It is what we are. From an evolutionary stand point we, as a species, are a phenomenal success. We are so, in part, because our morals and our instincts cause us to value human life (yes there are absolutely exceptions). We innately value that life. Now, we may employ logic in an effort to philosophically understand and codify morals and ethics but we need not strain logic to understand the importance of human existence and the valuing of all human life to most humans.

What I mean to say is that the morality of protecting the weak, the infirm, the handicapped and the young and valuing human life does not require rocket science nor a degree in philosophy to comprehend. It only takes the understanding of why we as a species persisted and flourished as we have. It was simple evolutionary principles that perchance instilled in us a sense that humans should occupy a special place in the imagination of humans.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't see the need to justify the morals of society based on the theory of morally "valuable" humans (Kantian I presume). I'm not sure why you do. I'm afraid you are alone on this one.

That would be fine and dandy if the existing morals of society were coherent, or were incoherent but somehow led to the best of all possible worlds anyway. Since neither of those possibilities is the case, you are just adhering blindly to "moral" beliefs which are indistinguishable from taboo or superstition.

As a species we can do better than that. In fact, that possibility is one of the reasons I think humans are a bit more important than animals.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with speciesism. Humans evolved to protect their own kind and particularly children. If our offspring die we as a species die. If we accept that we are the product of evolution both genetic and social then we can understand how and why morals evolved to protect our offspring and perhaps also how our innate sense evolved to protect our progeny. It only makes sense that genetically and socially we would be equipped to protect our offspring. How long would a species like humans survive if there was not a parent to protect it? Male lions will try to eat their offspring. This is why the mother avoids males after birth.

What you have landed in here is the naturalistic fallacy, the fallacious argument that what is is a guide to what ought to be.

"We have instincts to do X, we have evolved to do X, therefore it is moral that we do X" is a good example of the fallacy. I am sure with a moment's thought that you can find values of X for which doing X is not moral at all.

Is there any question that our innate sense of right and wrong would include the protection of babies and infants?

Unless you actually believe that we were created by a moral God who gave us a built in moralometer, given that you have already found for yourself some cases where our innate sense of right and wrong isn't a perfect guide to good conduct, I think you probably see now that the conclusion you want does not follow from this premise.

You don't understand my meaning. You see the solution is simple and not completly without precedent. You only use those that are in excess. We don't need to start baby farms. When the heard needs thinning we simply go in and cull them, using the meat rather than wasting it. Happens all of the time for bears, dear and other mammals.

Well, if the babies really were "in excess" (an idea I find ridiculous, but it's your hypothetical so I will take your word for it that in your scenario nobody wants to adopt, the babies cannot be raised to be productive members of any society and so on) and the mothers didn't object (do I have to spell out why this is even more ridiculous?) I suppose it might be all right. It's a vey silly scenario though.

Where?

I never said they were.

You framed it as a choice between irrationality on one hand, and treating selected people as subhuman with the implication that this would lead to bad consequences which I have to assume referred to things like slavery, pogroms and genocide.

I don't think it's legitimate to exclude the possibility of enlightened, rational moral behaviour. As a species, on our good days, we are capable of more than blind adherence to taboos and capable of rising above bigotry.

I simply reject the notion that there is some scale that determines what makes a human worthy of living to other humans. You do. All humans are deserving of being considered human regardless of value.

I put it to you that if your argument is simply "I reject proposition Y" then you are making a purely emotional argument not a rational one.

I snipped a reiteration of the naturalistic fallacy here, since the response above applies. Our instincts are not a reliable guide to what is moral, or even what is good for us.

Speciesism is very natural to us, but that doesn't say anything at all as to whether speciesism is morally or logically defensible. Our instincts are to cuddle babies, and to kill members of other species that are far more intelligent, sensitive and developed than a baby and put them on a spit over a fire. As I said earlier, if you try to find a way to defend these instincts as being a coherent moral system you are going to have some difficulties.

 

[Thanz]

Rather I think that rocks, fetuses, infants and rats aren't necessarily the kind of entities which it is appropriate to have a Kantian relationship with.

Correct but not really relevant. I might as well say "You think that it would be a bad idea to play a game of chicken, but you see, you aren't drunk. If you were drunk you would realise it is an excellent idea".

First, I don't think you actually understand Kant or the categorical imperative. Second, the fact that you have kids is both obvious and relevant. If you had kids, you would realize that equating them with a rock is ridiculous in the extreme. While I appreciate the humour in your drunk example, being drunk impairs your mental functions. Having kids does not. Perhaps you should have some before you decide that they are the equivalent of rocks. Actual first hand knowledge.

That or a couple of your ideas about morality are irrational but you are nonetheless very, very attached to them. So much so that you really cannot believe that someone could be a happy, moral person with a wonderful long-term relationship if they disagree with those particular ideas.

My comment was (mostly) tongue in cheek. But what is irrational about believing that it is wrong to leave an infant in a dumpster because you don't want it any more? At what point do you say that an infant attains some sort of innate moral worth? What scale are you using to calculate this moral worth? Is it a sliding scale - some are worth more than others - or is it more like a switch - once you hit point X, you are equal to everyone else? What is YOUR system of morality, and does it stand up to rational scrutiny?

 

[RandFan]

That would be fine and dandy if the existing morals of society were coherent, or were incoherent but somehow led to the best of all possible worlds anyway. Since neither of those possibilities is the case, you are just adhering blindly to "moral" beliefs which are indistinguishable from taboo or superstition.

This is just gainsaying to say that existing morals are not coherent. Who says morals must lead to the best of all worlds. That is just silly. And of course it is a classical false dilemma.

As a species we can do better than that. In fact, that possibility is one of the reasons I think humans are a bit more important than animals.

On the contrary, that IS what makes us important.

What you have landed in here is the naturalistic fallacy, the fallacious argument that what is is a guide to what ought to be.

But this is wrong. Not at all. I haven't said simply what "is" is what ought to be. I have demonstrated that what "is" has worked well for humans and has ensured our survival and it is a rational basis for valuing human life.

"We have instincts to do X, we have evolved to do X, therefore it is moral that we do X" is a good example of the fallacy. I am sure with a moment's thought that you can find values of X for which doing X is not moral at all.

Morals are not absolute. There is nothing axiomatic or intrinsic about right and wrong. One can't give empirical proof to morality. It is to society to develop and instill morals. Morals are based, in part, on culture and tradition. Morals are based, in part, on utility.

What is wrong? What is right? Why? Preserving our species is a good thing. Developing morals to that end is a good thing. Preserving our species is moral.

Unless you actually believe that we were created by a moral God who gave us a built in moralometer...

I don't and you know I don't so this is just a straw man. I would ask you not to make any more.

Well, if the babies really were "in excess" (an idea I find ridiculous, but it's your hypothetical so I will take your word for it that in your scenario nobody wants to adopt, the babies cannot be raised to be productive members of any society and so on) and the mothers didn't object (do I have to spell out why this is even more ridiculous?) I suppose it might be all right. It's a vey silly scenario though.

No, not at all. In South America children are orphaned at a very young age and are not being raised to be productive members of society. They become criminals at a very young age. The scenario would work well there. In some parts of the world children die of starvation. Instead of allowing that to happen we could simply cull them, eat the smallest thus ensuring the the "morally valuable" humans survive.

If we accept your thesis that children are not "morally valuable" and adults are "morally valuable" then would it not stand to reason that in times of famine it is appropriate to eat the young? Sailors used to eat young boys when stranded at sea. Isn't this morally justifiable by your logic?

You framed it as a choice between irrationality on one hand, and treating selected people as subhuman with the implication that this would lead to bad consequences which I have to assume referred to things like slavery, pogroms and genocide.

I have done no such thing. Characterizing my position as irrational is an empty claim. It is not at all irrational. It is rational to want to preserve humanity. It is rational to base morals on the preservation of humanity. You simply make these statements without any logical argument as to why your statements are correct. You simply declare them so.

I don't think it's legitimate to exclude the possibility of enlightened, rational moral behaviour.

I have not excluded rational moral behavior. On the contrary, I have given simple, logical reason why the valuing of all human life is beneficial to humans. By valuing human life we ensure our own existence. This is a good and rational thing.

As a species, on our good days, we are capable of more than blind adherence to taboos and capable of rising above bigotry.

This is a straw man. I never suggested blind adherence to taboos. Bigotry? Where does this come from? If we truly valued ALL human life then there would be no bigotry. When we put babies, the infirm, the elderly, etc. on the same level, that of being human, then we elevate all life human life and thus create a great basis for the morality of treating each other as equals. When we start to say there are "morally valuable" humans and there are "morally un-valuable" humans is when we get into trouble. Why? Because what is "morally valuable" can change as history has so well shown. "Morally valuable" places anyone who is not considered "morally valuable" at potential risk.

I put it to you that if your argument is simply "I reject proposition Y" then you are making a purely emotional argument not a rational one.

I reject position "Y" because it is demonstrably unsound. It doesn't ensure the survival of the species. It says that there are individuals in society that can be devalued and thus can be eliminated or enslaved or sterilized, etc..

I snipped a reiteration of the naturalistic fallacy here, since the response above applies. Our instincts are not a reliable guide to what is moral, or even what is good for us.

Again, morals are not absolute. I'm not sure where you got this notion but there is no basis for it. There is no calculation for morals. We can reason morals but they remain relative. Humans and societies can base morals on anything they choose. There are however some constants. There is some basis for us as rational humans to base our morals on. If society should decide that the existence of the species is good and we realize that evolution has provided a mechanism to ensure that existence then we see that there is rational justification for the morality of valuing all human life. The continued existence of humans is a good thing. If we choose to base our morals, in part, on the utility that evolution gave us then it is rational.

Speciesism is very natural to us, but that doesn't say anything at all as to whether speciesism is morally or logically defensible. Our instincts are to cuddle babies, and to kill members of other species that are far more intelligent, sensitive and developed than a baby and put them on a spit over a fire. As I said earlier, if you try to find a way to defend these instincts as being a coherent moral system you are going to have some difficulties.

There is no difficulty at all making an argument that valuing all human life is good for humans. There is no difficulty at all in understanding why and how nature equipped us with means to continue that survival. Valuing human life is good for us. It is rational and we have made it moral.

We are missing something here. Your argument as to what is "morally valuable" and why. Your position as to whether or not we as a society should protect children, the infirm, the elderly and why? Should there be laws to prevent elder abuse? Why or why not? Should there be laws to protect child abuse? Why or why not?

This really started with you claiming that children are not morally valuable. You have yet to justify this stance. Instead you sought to put the entire affair on me. Which is fine since justifying the valuing of all humans is easy I had no problem with that. However would you give me the courtesy of answering my questions?

 

[UserGoogol]

While I appreciate the humour in your drunk example, being drunk impairs your mental functions. Having kids does not.

It kinda does. It doesn't make you stupid per se, but it does give you an emotional reaction which you would not otherwise have, thus skewing your opinions from an unbiased point of view.

I simply reject the notion that there is some scale that determines what makes a human worthy of living to other humans. You do. All humans are deserving of being considered human regardless of value. This is not irrational.

It kinda is. To steal a thought experiment from Richard Dawkins, imagine that you had knowledge of every organism that had ever lived on earth. You would thus be able to construct a graph such that parents were connected to their children. As a general thing, parents tend to resemble their children somewhat, big mutations tend to lead to dead ends, thus any nodes which were connected would be very similar. For any two organisms, it would thus be possible to find a path along this graph. Consider the path from Kevin Bacon to an African tortoise. At one end of the line, you would have something obviously human, and something obviously not. But since each step between organisms would be a "very small" step, it becomes obvious that for any well-defined catagory of "humans," you would have another organism which was "very similar" to a human.

It's of course not difficult to create a definition of human which is binary and well-defined. A biological definition might be the ability to successfully breed with Kevin Bacon. A more philosophically meaningful one might be the ability to think and feel. But thinking and feeling is not the easiest property to empirically observe, and furthermore is not terribly binary. So in other words things are complicated.

As a historical accident, it does happen that pretty much all fully grown humans are about as human as any other human, and that logically they are equally entitled to their human rights. But we should not presume that things are nice and tidy and discrete. Of course they are not. And in the human development proccess, we have a similar spectrum from things of dubious value (the zygote) to things of very much value. (The adult human being.) So yes, things are complicated.

 

[RandFan]

It kinda does.

Not relevant to my point. But thanks.

My point isn't that all people are equal or that there is some intrinsic quality to being human. By valuing all human life and by extending the same rights and privileges to all people because they are human we increase the likelihood that each of us will be treated equitably and we will more likely provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people and we increase the likelihood of our own survival. It really is as simple as that.

On the other hand, when we start to create scales for what constitutes a "morally valuable" person we create a built in discrimination and history has demonstrated that scales change with changes in political and cultural climates.

The Armenians were not "morally valuable" to the Turks. Farmers were not "morally valuable" to Joseph Stalin. Blacks were not "morally valuable" to white Europeans during the slave trade. Those who would exploit others are always looking for ways to devalue human beings.

 

[RandFan]

Having given considerable thought regarding the "naturalistic fallacy" I wanted to explore the subject more in-depth.

For what its worth I don't think that because something is natural makes something right. However evolution has given us tools to ensure our survival and if those tools work then they are good, IMO.

There is a bird called the masked booby. The mother booby has two eggs because two eggs increases the chance that one will survive. However there simply is not enough resources for both chicks so assuming both survive birth the strongest of the siblings kills the others. Is this moral? Well of course boobies are not moral agents so it is neither moral nor immoral. However for the survival of the entire booby population it is a good thing. For the weaker of the boobies it is a bad thing.

Assuming the same conditions for humans could we have also evolved to include killing of ones siblings as morally acceptable? Is there anything that could be justified by the survival of the species?

When Shirley Jackson released The Lottery, a story about average citizens engaged in human sacrifice in 1948 she caused a great uproar. Why?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

First, I don't think you actually understand Kant or the categorical imperative.

It's late here, so forgive me if this is short. I can expand it later.

Abortion and even in infanticide (if you want to go that far) are dead easy to justify under the "act in the way you would like everyone to act" imperative, as long as you have a reason for what you are doing. In fact the CI is so open to such logic that you can even justify killing adult humans.

If was a repugnant sort of person such that I could say honestly "If I had Down's Syndrome I would like someone to shoot me, thus I shoot people with Down's Syndrome" then under the CI I would be behaving morally because I was behaving in a way that I would genuinely wish everyone to behave.

It would be nice to think that the logic had a gap in it, but exactly the same logic justifies things we tend to find less appalling. Example: "If I was terminally ill and being kept alive in terrible agony by life support, but had absolutely no hope of recovery, and I was unable to communicate my wish to die, I would like to have the plug pulled".

Basically I don't think Kant leads directly to any clear moral path when it comes to abortion, euthanasia and other really tricky problems.

In my case, I don't think that I was particularly valuable when I was a fetus or a very young infant in my own right. If I had died then for whatever reason I think that would be far less tragic than if I died tonight. As long as I'm consistent about it I am right with Kant.

Second, the fact that you have kids is both obvious and relevant. If you had kids, you would realize that equating them with a rock is ridiculous in the extreme. While I appreciate the humour in your drunk example, being drunk impairs your mental functions. Having kids does not. Perhaps you should have some before you decide that they are the equivalent of rocks. Actual first hand knowledge.

No, having kids does impair your judgement. A woman's body dumps hormones a few days after giving birth that make them think their squalling poop-tube is wonderful and precious, and the effect lasts a very long time. Male parents get the same hormone dump. This is why your kids are amazing and wonderful, and you neighbour's kids are ill-trained simians that smell.

Mind you the hormones leave a post-natal dumpster window before they kick in, so that in hard times our ancestors could bin an infant they could not feed. Evolution only wants us to take care of babies if doing so represents an odds-on bet of passing on our genetic payload. If an infant is unlikely to be a good bet evolution wants us to discard it, which is why we find babies in dumpsters every now and then.

The fact is infants don't have a mind or a personality for quite a while after birth, and it's years before they are even as smart as a chimp.

There's an interesting article here about research into differences between chimp and child cognition. Different but comparable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/science/13essa.html

My comment was (mostly) tongue in cheek. But what is irrational about believing that it is wrong to leave an infant in a dumpster because you don't want it any more?

Nothing, it's just not right to think it's as wrong as abandoning an adult human to die.

At what point do you say that an infant attains some sort of innate moral worth? What scale are you using to calculate this moral worth? Is it a sliding scale - some are worth more than others - or is it more like a switch - once you hit point X, you are equal to everyone else? What is YOUR system of morality, and does it stand up to rational scrutiny?

If you can carry on a conversation, even a very primitive one, you're in the human club.

If you can communicate by stringing symbols together without syntax you're in the chimp club, and I personally think chimps should get the same rights and respect as mentally disabled humans of comparable intellect and physical capabilties: I am strongly against using them for medical research, for example. Humans get here fairly quickly.

If you don't have a concept of a future or past beyond instinctive behaviours but are capable of solving simple problems and whatnot you are in the horse/cow/dog/rat club, and while cruelty to you is intolerable it's not an unforgivable crime in my mind to kill such entities in a humane fashion if there is good reason to do so.

If you're essentially a biological automaton like a wasp or an ant, or you are a plant, you don't get no respect in your own right. You may well be beautiful or useful or a part of the ecosystem but I don't care either way about your welfare for its own sake the way I care about a human's welfare for its own sake. I don't lose any sleep because birds eat insects and cows eat grass.

A newborn human is such a crappy piece of protoplasm by any objective standards that it has to go somewhere between grass and a rat. It's got more going on than lettuce does but a whole lot less going on than someone's pet rat.

 

[Thanz]

The fact is infants don't have a mind or a personality for quite a while after birth, and it's years before they are even as smart as a chimp.

Really? My two kids were quite different even from birth. But I guess that was just a hormone dump or something. Do you have any cites to back up this claim?

Nothing, it's just not right to think it's as wrong as abandoning an adult human to die.

Why?

If you can carry on a conversation, even a very primitive one, you're in the human club.

If you can communicate by stringing symbols together without syntax you're in the chimp club, and I personally think chimps should get the same rights and respect as mentally disabled humans of comparable intellect and physical capabilties: I am strongly against using them for medical research, for example. Humans get here fairly quickly.

If you don't have a concept of a future or past beyond instinctive behaviours but are capable of solving simple problems and whatnot you are in the horse/cow/dog/rat club, and while cruelty to you is intolerable it's not an unforgivable crime in my mind to kill such entities in a humane fashion if there is good reason to do so.

If you're essentially a biological automaton like a wasp or an ant, or you are a plant, you don't get no respect in your own right. You may well be beautiful or useful or a part of the ecosystem but I don't care either way about your welfare for its own sake the way I care about a human's welfare for its own sake. I don't lose any sleep because birds eat insects and cows eat grass.

A newborn human is such a crappy piece of protoplasm by any objective standards that it has to go somewhere between grass and a rat. It's got more going on than lettuce does but a whole lot less going on than someone's pet rat.

What is your basis for equating intelligence with moral worth? Does it not follow from your analysis that it is morally worse to kill Einstein than your average Joe. Is that what you believe?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Really? My two kids were quite different even from birth. But I guess that was just a hormone dump or something. Do you have any cites to back up this claim?

Your kids were different in a biochemical kind of way, but not because they had different minds or personalities. Squalling less and kicking more or vice versa doesn't mean there is anything going on upstairs. Their brains still have a very long way to go when they are born.

I am sure there are plenty of developmental psychology resources on the net if you want to read up on how far the newborn brain still has to go.

Why?

Because an adult human possesses discursive thought, the potential for genuine altruism and moral behaviour, a conception of itself as an ongoing process, plans for the future and whatnot.

What is your basis for equating intelligence with moral worth? Does it not follow from your analysis that it is morally worse to kill Einstein than your average Joe. Is that what you believe?

Einstein and a dunce both have the qualities I listed above, so it would be wrong to kill either of them. Generally I feel that trying to differentiate degrees of moral value at such a fine level as specific individual, normal, adult humans is very difficult and almost totally pointless. Egalitarianism works better and yields virtually identical results, which doesn't stop us instinctively constructing social hierarchies anyway.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is just gainsaying to say that existing morals are not coherent. Who says morals must lead to the best of all worlds. That is just silly. And of course it is a classical false dilemma.

There's only so far I'm inclined to backtrack over this argument. If you can really manage to persuade yourself that two organisms of equal sensitivity and intelligence, who differ materially only in that one is of species A and the other is of species B, are of vastly different moral value and that this is coherent then there isn't anything more to talk about.

But this is wrong. Not at all. I haven't said simply what "is" is what ought to be. I have demonstrated that what "is" has worked well for humans and has ensured our survival and it is a rational basis for valuing human life.

The conclusion that your preferred way of doing things is moral or coherent does not follow from this. It is neither necessary nor sufficient for a thing to be moral that it be instinctive or that it was useful in the past.

That's why it is a fallacy.

Morals are not absolute. There is nothing axiomatic or intrinsic about right and wrong. One can't give empirical proof to morality.

Sure, but coherence and a grounding in empirical fact are still necessary for a given moral system to have any appeal to a rational human being.

What is wrong? What is right? Why? Preserving our species is a good thing. Developing morals to that end is a good thing. Preserving our species is moral.

So if X is a rule that "preserves our species", by which you mean increases the population, X is moral? I don't think you want to go there.

I don't and you know I don't so this is just a straw man. I would ask you not to make any more.

You missed the point. Unless you are a theist there is absolutely no basis for inferring a moral rule from our instincts, because our instincts are the result of amoral evolutionary pressures. I know you're not a theist, I'm pointing out to you that you are running a line of argument that only makes sense if you are a theist of some sort.

That's why the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy.

No, not at all. In South America children are orphaned at a very young age and are not being raised to be productive members of society. They become criminals at a very young age. The scenario would work well there. In some parts of the world children die of starvation. Instead of allowing that to happen we could simply cull them, eat the smallest thus ensuring the the "morally valuable" humans survive.

Well, if you get to ignore my points about adoption or other solutions to the problem you might get to that conclusion. It's a straightforwardly bogus way to make an argument though. I can prove any damn thing is moral if I'm allowed to ignore every solution other than the one I want.

If we accept your thesis that children are not "morally valuable" and adults are "morally valuable" then would it not stand to reason that in times of famine it is appropriate to eat the young? Sailors used to eat young boys when stranded at sea. Isn't this morally justifiable by your logic?

Not more or less than any other instance of survival cannibalism as far as I can see.

I have done no such thing. Characterizing my position as irrational is an empty claim. It is not at all irrational. It is rational to want to preserve humanity. It is rational to base morals on the preservation of humanity. You simply make these statements without any logical argument as to why your statements are correct. You simply declare them so.

You have rational desires. The argument you present for why it is moral to pursue those desires via the particular moral rules you want to establish is not rational however, no matter how rational your desires are. Getting the rationality of your desires and the rationality of your argument muddled is woolly thinking.

I have not excluded rational moral behavior. On the contrary, I have given simple, logical reason why the valuing of all human life is beneficial to humans. By valuing human life we ensure our own existence. This is a good and rational thing.

You are begging the question of whether there is any conceivable way this goal could be achieved other than adhering to your personal set of taboos.

This is a straw man. I never suggested blind adherence to taboos. Bigotry? Where does this come from? If we truly valued ALL human life then there would be no bigotry. When we put babies, the infirm, the elderly, etc. on the same level, that of being human, then we elevate all life human life and thus create a great basis for the morality of treating each other as equals. When we start to say there are "morally valuable" humans and there are "morally un-valuable" humans is when we get into trouble. Why? Because what is "morally valuable" can change as history has so well shown. "Morally valuable" places anyone who is not considered "morally valuable" at potential risk.

Whoopsie, Randfan. The intent of that remark to was to point out bigotry directed towards animals.

I reject position "Y" because it is demonstrably unsound. It doesn't ensure the survival of the species. It says that there are individuals in society that can be devalued and thus can be eliminated or enslaved or sterilized, etc..

Caged, slaughtered, used for medical experiments...

We are missing something here. Your argument as to what is "morally valuable" and why. Your position as to whether or not we as a society should protect children, the infirm, the elderly and why? Should there be laws to prevent elder abuse? Why or why not? Should there be laws to protect child abuse? Why or why not?

Go start a thread about that if you really want to talk about it. None of this is relevant to anything I have said, as you would know if you paid attention.

This really started with you claiming that children are not morally valuable. You have yet to justify this stance

This really looks to me like evidence you don't actually read what other people write. You just skim read for what you think the gist of it is, and then start churning out irrelevant rhetorical questions and repetitive, fallacious arguments that address only your own straw men.

What's in it for me to reply to your posts if you are not willing to read and try to understand my replies?