Science and ethics

[Coyote]

Science and ethics are closely entertwined....James Thomson, who first seperated out human embryonic stemcells noted this and posed the following question:

If you were in a lab and there was a tank of human embryos, and a live baby sitting next to it, and there was a fire and you could only save one - which would you save?

[9sublime]

Killer question. Its got to be the baby though. Otherwise I'd best start bottling my sperm on the same logic.

[palerider]

The question is a logical fallacy. It places the questionee on the horns of a false delema. The choice you make in saving one or the other does not change the fact that you have left human beings behind who will die in the fire.

If you were in the same blazing room but were faced with a black female child, a white male child, a female child of unspecified race and a male child of unspecified race, and you could only save one, does the choice you make prove anything with regard to the rest?

[Popeye]

The question is a logical fallacy. It places the questionee on the horns of a false delema. The choice you make in saving one or the other does not change the fact that you have left human beings behind who will die in the fire.

If you were in the same blazing room but were faced with a black female child, a white male child, a female child of unspecified race and a male child of unspecified race, and you could only save one, does the choice you make prove anything with regard to the rest?

It's not the same thing, in Coyote's scenario the baby possesses brain life and is self aware, the embryos have neither.

[Coyote]

The question is a logical fallacy. It places the questionee on the horns of a false delema. The choice you make in saving one or the other does not change the fact that you have left human beings behind who will die in the fire.

If you were in the same blazing room but were faced with a black female child, a white male child, a female child of unspecified race and a male child of unspecified race, and you could only save one, does the choice you make prove anything with regard to the rest?



It's a common type of ethical conundrum that is interesting to discuss. Not to different then discussing who would you toss from the lifeboat.

Do you save the born baby? Or the tank which contains a greater number?

[palerider]

Personally, I would save the baby. Not because it is more human than the rest, but since the embyros are stored in liquid nitrogen, they are in less emminent danger than the child. They have a longer period in which they could survive the fire.

And there is nothing interesting in discussing a logical fallacy unless your own postion is based in logical fallacies.

And please tell me, exactly what does your choice prove about the one or ones you leave behind in either your senario or mine?

[palerider]

It's not the same thing, in Coyote's scenario the baby possesses brain life and is self aware, the embryos have neither.

How old is the baby? Research indicates that most of us don't achieve self awareness until somewhere between 12 and 18 months.

And if the child is a newborn, then it is only 8 or 9 months closer to full maturity somewhere in its late 20's than the embryos.

Face it, either way, human beings are left behind to burn. If you believe otherwise, then produce some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is at some point, something other than a human being.

[Coyote]

Personally, I would save the baby. Not because it is more human than the rest, but since the embyros are stored in liquid nitrogen, they are in less emminent danger than the child. They have a longer period in which they could survive the fire.

And there is nothing interesting in discussing a logical fallacy unless your own postion is based in logical fallacies.

And please tell me, exactly what does your choice prove about the one or ones you leave behind in either your senario or mine?

It's not intended to prove anything about one's choices exactly. It's the choice of whether to save the one or the many, or whether one regards them all on the same level of humanity.

I would choose the baby because - first off - I automatically would recognize it as a human being, without thinking, and second if the fire gave me time to think, I would also realize it could and would suffer horribly.

[palerider]

It's not intended to prove anything about one's choices exactly. It's the choice of whether to save the one or the many, or whether one regards them all on the same level of humanity.


Of course it is. It is a pitiful attempt to put pro lifers on the horns of a false dilemma and nothing more. It is a very weak attempt to prove that unborns are somehow less than human beings and less deserving of life.

[Coyote]

Of course it is. It is a pitiful attempt to put pro lifers on the horns of a false dilemma and nothing more. It is a very weak attempt to prove that unborns are somehow less than human beings and less deserving of life.

It was not intended that way - the person who first posed it felt there were very real ethical dilemmas involved in the fetal stem cell debate, and he was the one who first isolated stemcells.

[Bunz]

Id probably try and put the fire out. But thats just me.

In my opinion on a moral level, human embryos in liquid nitrogren or other suspended state that have not been in utero long enough to ensure its survival without that suspended state compared to an already breathing, functioning on its own full term baby.

[palerider]

It was not intended that way - the person who first posed it felt there were very real ethical dilemmas involved in the fetal stem cell debate, and he was the one who first isolated stemcells.

No? Look at the patently rediculous answer you got from 9sublime. I note that you made no attempt to steer him in the direction you intended.

And the man who made the quote was making a weak attempt to justify the continued killing of human embryo's, not simply point out that there are ethical problems.

[Coyote]

No? Look at the patently rediculous answer you got from 9sublime. I note that you made no attempt to steer him in the direction you intended.

And the man who made the quote was making a weak attempt to justify the continued killing of human embryo's, not simply point out that there are ethical problems.

I don't usually steer people in a debate but perhaps I am guilty of not giving enough information.

The man who made the quote was not attempting to justify the killing of human embryo's but rather, was someone seriously wrestling with the ethical considerations of killing human embyros to provide potential life saving treatments: a potential person vs. a potential treatment. He didn't regard it lightly and the fact that he may not have agreed with you does not cheapen his ethics. The dilemma involved is one we are going to be facing over and over again in this world of rapidly advancing science - an advance far more rapid then the corresponding advance in ethics. To attempt to cheapen it as a "weak attempt to justify the continued killing of human embryos" is just that - cheap. The dilemma is real. Science is neutral. It's how people develop the associated ethics that puts a value on it.


Here is an article, that talks about Thompson: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/docs/fosterx.htm

Reserved Scientist Creates an Uproar With His Work on Stem Cells
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

When Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine, he granted the journalist Edward R. Murrow an interview, appeared in a photo spread in Life magazine, and became an American hero virtually overnight. When Dolly the sheep was cloned, her creator, Ian Wilmut, was featured in news magazines and on television programs around the globe.

Few people, by contrast, have ever heard of James A. Thomson. And that is just the way Dr. Thomson likes it.

Three years ago, Dr. Thomson, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin, became the first person to isolate stem cells from human embryos. Nobel laureates praised his work as a breakthrough that might revolutionize modern medicine. Conservatives and some religious leaders, notably Pope John Paul II, denounced it as immoral.

Now President Bush is considering whether to permit federal financing for the research; current law bans spending taxpayer dollars on such work. And here in Wisconsin, where a private foundation affiliated with the university holds the lucrative patent rights to the cells Dr. Thomson discovered, some legislators are contemplating a ban on future embryonic stem cell work.

At the vortex of the controversy is an intensely private, soft-spoken scientist who, by all accounts, including his own, has thought carefully about the ethical implications of his research, as well as the inevitable publicity. That he might wind up in the spotlight so worried Dr. Thomson, he said, that he almost decided not to pursue the work that, many scientists say, holds out the hope for curing diseases as varied as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes.

But in the end, he said, with characteristic understatement, ''I just decided it would be important enough to do it.''

.......

''He has been fanatically attentive to the ethical issues,'' Dr. Fost said. ''We are lucky that the guy who is the pioneer in all this is such a responsible, thoughtful person.''

For Dr. Thomson, the moral questions about embryo experimentation were not difficult to resolve; he concluded that research was the ''better ethical choice,'' so long as the embryos, created by couples who no longer wanted to use them to have children, would otherwise be discarded.

But he was worried that stem cells might be misused to clone people -- a fear that, he said, eventually abated in 1997, when Dr. Wilmut demonstrated by cloning Dolly that embryos were not needed because clones could be produced from adult cells. And he did not like the idea that he might become a public person. So he contemplated leaving to someone else the research in human embryos.




The ethical dilemma represented is in my mind: do you save the many potential people or do you save the one actualized person? All are human beings.

I have my answer and my reasons which in the end are the same reason that if it were a choice between the mother's life and the fetus' - I would choose the mother.

[numinus]

It was not intended that way - the person who first posed it felt there were very real ethical dilemmas involved in the fetal stem cell debate, and he was the one who first isolated stemcells.

I simply cannot see the logic in such a thing.

How does anyone comply with a moral imperative and deny the very same imperative at the same time? You wish to alleviate the suffering of a human being by killing another?

Is not that the most ridiculous proposition you have ever heard?

[palerider]

I simply cannot see the logic in such a thing.

How does anyone comply with a moral imperative and deny the very same imperative at the same time? You wish to alleviate the suffering of a human being by killing another?

Is not that the most ridiculous proposition you have ever heard?

It is a position that a great number of people in history have embraced. German researchers made great strides in medicine when they were allowed to experiment on human beings. The same can be said for soviet doctors.

[numinus]

It is a position that a great number of people in history have embraced. German researchers made great strides in medicine when they were allowed to experiment on human beings. The same can be said for soviet doctors.

Correct.

However, what is the use of technology when it is not made to serve humanity? In this fundamental question lies the ethical dilemma of science.

[palerider]

Correct.

However, what is the use of technology when it is not made to serve humanity? In this fundamental question lies the ethical dilemma of science.

They overcome the dilemma that human embryos cause in the same manner that hitler overcame the dilemma with the jews. He convinced himself that they were not actually human beings. In his private writings, he described jews as an "infection", literally not humans. I believe that in the end, he actually believed this.

Look through abortion threads across the internet. The same sort of thing has been happening in that pro choicers try very hard to convince themselves that unborns are not, in fact, human beings. They tell themselves, and anyone who will listen this lie in spite of the fact that there is no credible science that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

[numinus]

The ethical dilemma represented is in my mind: do you save the many potential people or do you save the one actualized person? All are human beings.

Apparently, you don't consider all as human beings. That is quite evident when you felt the need to attach the words 'potential' and 'actualized'. The only difference, to my mind, is that the embryo is incapable of defending himself. Otherwise, the answer is clear and simple. One cannot pretend to save another human being at the expense of another - except when the life in question is his own.

I have my answer and my reasons which in the end are the same reason that if it were a choice between the mother's life and the fetus' - I would choose the mother.

This is not the same.

The medical practitioner is obliged to save both. And if the circumstances can only allow one to live, then the doctor tries to save the one with the better chance of surviving whatever procedure is required.

There is a vast difference between this and the use of living human embryos for scientific research.

[palerider]

There is a vast difference between this and the use of living human embryos for scientific research.

UNFAIR!!! UNFAIR!!!

You are asking that the pro choice side build an argument to defend their position based on rational thinking. Everyone knows that there is nothing rational about their position.

[Coyote]

I simply cannot see the logic in such a thing.

How does anyone comply with a moral imperative and deny the very same imperative at the same time? You wish to alleviate the suffering of a human being by killing another?

Is not that the most ridiculous proposition you have ever heard?

Ethics is full of very real quagmires and very few easy answers. No...it's not exactly ridiculous. People have considered it in any number of ways - for example, should not prisoners be used for that purpose? Or which is greater: the individual or the collective good of the society?

By the way - because I post these things does not mean I agree with them.

[Coyote]

UNFAIR!!! UNFAIR!!!

You are asking that the pro choice side build an argument to defend their position based on rational thinking. Everyone knows that there is nothing rational about their position.

Here you are wrong. Pro-choice is rational because it's regarded as a matter of choice on what one can do with one's body - not an imperative. It's as rational as your own argument PaleRider. You've convinced me to alter my stance on abortion significantly but not in every situation. And it wasn't rational argument alone that did it because - in the end, I still feel very strongly that while I will not choose abortion, no one has the right to force something in or on my body against my will that I had no consent to.

[Coyote]

It is a position that a great number of people in history have embraced. German researchers made great strides in medicine when they were allowed to experiment on human beings. The same can be said for soviet doctors.

Yes - exactly. But it comes down - in the end - to which has the greater moral imperative: the good of the one or the good of the many?

This same argument can be applied to the death penalty too. The "good of the many" dictates that a person be executed if judged guilty of certain crimes despite the possibility that they might in fact, be innocent. The "good of the one" dictates that we keep him incarcerated for life despite the possibility that he might escape or be released and commit further crimes.

Does the "good of the many" mean that "the one" should be sacrificed? If you were a Nazi or a Soviet era doctor or one of the Tuskegee doctors you would say "yes".

Personally, I say no.

[Coyote]

Apparently, you don't consider all as human beings. That is quite evident when you felt the need to attach the words 'potential' and 'actualized'. The only difference, to my mind, is that the embryo is incapable of defending himself.


And a born baby is?

I would look at it in another dimension. Which would suffer? It is suffering that I would react to.


Otherwise, the answer is clear and simple. One cannot pretend to save another human being at the expense of another - except when the life in question is his own.

But in real life you can't save everyone.



This is not the same.

The medical practitioner is obliged to save both. And if the circumstances can only allow one to live, then the doctor tries to save the one with the better chance of surviving whatever procedure is required.

There is a vast difference between this and the use of living human embryos for scientific research.

I'm not really talking specifically about the use of living human embryos for research - just that the author of the topic considered the ethical implications of what he was doing. He may not have made the choice you would but that doesn't mean he neither cares nor is concerned for the ethics involved.

[palerider]

Here you are wrong. Pro-choice is rational because it's regarded as a matter of choice on what one can do with one's body - not an imperative.

Pro choice is irrational because it isn't "one's body" that is being torn limb from limb or burned to death in a saline solution. The choice has nothing to do with doing a thing to "ones" body, the choice is about doing a thing to another's body. The irrationality lies in believing, or attempting to believe that it is about one's own body.

It's as rational as your own argument PaleRider. You've convinced me to alter my stance on abortion significantly but not in every situation. And it wasn't rational argument alone that did it because - in the end, I still feel very strongly that while I will not choose abortion, no one has the right to force something in or on my body against my will that I had no consent to.

It is only rational if you state it in terms that reflect the reality. Make a rational argument for allowing one human being to kill another human being without legal consequence for any or no reason if you want to make a rational argument.

So are you arguing against abortion, or the killing of any unborn who is not the product of rape?

[Coyote]

dup post

[Coyote]

Pro choice is irrational because it isn't "one's body" that is being torn limb from limb or burned to death in a saline solution. The choice has nothing to do with doing a thing to "ones" body, the choice is about doing a thing to another's body. The irrationality lies in believing, or attempting to believe that it is about one's own body.


No matter how you cut and dice it - two bodies are involved. You, the pro-lifers, would remove the maternal body from consideration. The pro-choicers would remove the fetal body from consideration. Neither can justly claim total rationality.


It is only rational if you state it in terms that reflect the reality. Make a rational argument for allowing one human being to kill another human being without legal consequence for any or no reason if you want to make a rational argument.


That is not the only parameter for "rational" or "reality".


So are you arguing against abortion, or the killing of any unborn who is not the product of rape?

Yes. And I do not include the pill.

[vyo476]

No matter how you cut and dice it - two bodies are involved. You, the pro-lifers, would remove the maternal body from consideration. The pro-choicers would remove the fetal body from consideration. Neither can justly claim total rationality.

So how do you justify taking a side?

[Coyote]

So how do you justify taking a side?

I'm not sure.

[numinus]

And a born baby is?

I would look at it in another dimension. Which would suffer? It is suffering that I would react to.

So, it is ok to kill someone if you render him unconcious and anesthesized first?

But in real life you can't save everyone.

Correct. In real life as in any ethical consideration, you MAY NOT save a life at the expense of another - unless it is your own.

I'm not really talking specifically about the use of living human embryos for research - just that the author of the topic considered the ethical implications of what he was doing. He may not have made the choice you would but that doesn't mean he neither cares nor is concerned for the ethics involved.

Any ethical consideration MUST exclude considerations of personal profit or aggrandizement. That is why a moral good is thought of as ITS OWN REWARD. I have no problems when personal profit coincides with a moral good. By all means, reap the rewards.

However, ethical dilemmas are so precisely because what one WANTS to do contradicts what one OUGHT to do.

[numinus]

No matter how you cut and dice it - two bodies are involved. You, the pro-lifers, would remove the maternal body from consideration. The pro-choicers would remove the fetal body from consideration. Neither can justly claim total rationality.



That is not the only parameter for "rational" or "reality".



Yes. And I do not include the pill.

Correction.

What pro-choice is actually saying is that the imperative of human life, (from which ALL CHOICES are made possible to begin with) can be made subservient to choice.

This is an UNPRECEDENTED AND COMPLETELY BASELESS assertion.

[Coyote]

So, it is ok to kill someone if you render him unconcious and anesthesized first?



No, it's not ok to kill someone - and no where, I think, in what I've said have I indicated the above.

If I were to encounter the situation in the initial post and my only options were to save one or the other - I would save the one most likely to experience suffering. I will go further on a limb here....I believe that if the choice were between a dog and a tank of frozen embryos I would choose the dog because I know the dog would experience horrible suffering and fear if it were burned alive, but the embryos - even though human, have no ability to feel anything yet.


Correct. In real life as in any ethical consideration, you MAY NOT save a life at the expense of another - unless it is your own.


Why not?

Let's say you are in a sinking boat and you only have enough time to save some of the people - do you dive in and grab and save as many as you can in the time you have, knowing some will die or do you throw up your hands and just save yourself?

Any ethical consideration MUST exclude considerations of personal profit or aggrandizement. That is why a moral good is thought of as ITS OWN REWARD. I have no problems when personal profit coincides with a moral good. By all means, reap the rewards.


If you read about this particular case you'll see that personal profit or self aggrandizement was not desired.


However, ethical dilemmas are so precisely because what one WANTS to do contradicts what one OUGHT to do.

True - but what defines "ought"? That is wide open.

[numinus]

No, it's not ok to kill someone - and no where, I think, in what I've said have I indicated the above.

You said that it is the suffering that you react to, did you not? And here, you are talking exclusively to a percieved suffering.

What is the relationship of your perception of something relative to what that something is? And since when is it ok to define a human being on the sole basis of another's perception?

If I were to encounter the situation in the initial post and my only options were to save one or the other - I would save the one most likely to experience suffering.

There it is again. What makes you think another person 'suffers' more or less from the same situation? That somehow, the utilitarian calculations of pain and pleasure are anywhere near objective they may be couched in mathematical terms?

I will go further on a limb here....I believe that if the choice were between a dog and a tank of frozen embryos I would choose the dog because I know the dog would experience horrible suffering and fear if it were burned alive, but the embryos - even though human, have no ability to feel anything yet.

I'm sorry but this simply doesn't make sense. Does an animal feel less suffering when it is slaughtered for food. Or that the imperatives of human existence can somehow become contingent on what an animal feels?

In your moral calculations, your dog has more worth than a human stranger.

Why not?

Because the imperative of saving a human life in one becomes absurd if you end human life in another in the process.

Let's say you are in a sinking boat and you only have enough time to save some of the people - do you dive in and grab and save as many as you can in the time you have, knowing some will die or do you throw up your hands and just save yourself?

It is perfectly reasonable to just save yourself. For that, you need no rational calculation, hence no morality. Surely any animal would be inclined to do the same.

However, saving another at the risk of your own life, goes beyond inclinations of self-preservation, hence an action done according to a higher or rational principle - hence a moral imperative.

If you read about this particular case you'll see that personal profit or self aggrandizement was not desired.

True - but what defines "ought"? That is wide open.

Surely, you can think of something that would accrue to no other good but itself.

The preservation of human life, in whatever form it takes, and the conditions necessary to support its potential, constitutes a moral or categorical imperative. It isn't simply a means towards a higher end. It is an end that is good in and of itself.

And so, we have, from rational thought, discerned one standard for which any action ought to conform to.

[Coyote]

You said that it is the suffering that you react to, did you not? And here, you are talking exclusively to a percieved suffering.

No, it isn't percieved suffering in the sense that the living creature has a nervous system, pain receptors and burning is known to be extremely painful by those who have survived such incidents. It is perceived in the sense that I am percieving that potential for suffering in another being - but then, that is what empathy is all about and empathy for another creatures suffering is an attribute of a higher animal.


What is the relationship of your perception of something relative to what that something is? And since when is it ok to define a human being on the sole basis of another's perception?


I'm not sure what you are asking me here...


There it is again. What makes you think another person 'suffers' more or less from the same situation? That somehow, the utilitarian calculations of pain and pleasure are anywhere near objective they may be couched in mathematical terms?


Biologically speaking you certain conditions need to exist to experience suffering (pain receptors, nervous system, brain) and to experience fear and anticipation of suffering (some sort of higher consciousness). That part (perception of pain) can be measured in fairly objective ways. If the necessary biological components are missing - is there suffering?

Mathmatics is not a language I understand well enough to debate in.


I'm sorry but this simply doesn't make sense. Does an animal feel less suffering when it is slaughtered for food. Or that the imperatives of human existence can somehow become contingent on what an animal feels?


It makes plenty of sense.

Which causes more suffering:

a clean bullet to the head or hacking a live animal up with an ax?

putting an animal through a stressful shipping experience, long waits in an unfamiliar chutes and stockyards where it can sense the panic of slaughtering (smell of blood, what ever noises are made) or local slaughter at facility designed to reduce stress and a quick relatively painless death? (look up Temple Grandin's book)

This isn't just "bleeding heart" talking here either - stress and suffering produce biochemical changes in the animal that can be objectively measured. Behavior can also be measured though that is more subjective.

Humans are animals. We consider ourselves "higher animals". Why? One reason is that we have the potential for empathy and compassion that transcends species. We have the ability to see beyond the immediate of stomach and sex. Because of this compassion we see the embryo as a potential human being and we see other living creatures as beings that can experience suffering too.


In your moral calculations, your dog has more worth than a human stranger.


It depends on the situation and the stranger I think.


Because the imperative of saving a human life in one becomes absurd if you end human life in another in the process.


You did not end the life. You can not be held morally responsible for the lives you could not save but you could be held morally responsible for not trying to save any at all.


It is perfectly reasonable to just save yourself. For that, you need no rational calculation, hence no morality. Surely any animal would be inclined to do the same.

However, saving another at the risk of your own life, goes beyond inclinations of self-preservation, hence an action done according to a higher or rational principle - hence a moral imperative.


Agreed.


Surely, you can think of something that would accrue to no other good but itself.

The preservation of human life, in whatever form it takes, and the conditions necessary to support its potential, constitutes a moral or categorical imperative. It isn't simply a means towards a higher end. It is an end that is good in and of itself.

And so, we have, from rational thought, discerned one standard for which any action ought to conform to.

Why just human life? What makes human life - in any form - so special?

PaleRider says the law. But I'm looking for something more to convince me. I believe he will accuse me of mental masturbation but I find this kind of discussion interesting.

When we talk about abortion I am looking at it as ending a potential life and yes I use the word potential - not potential human, I do not argue that, but potential life. Do we have the right to end ANY life that is not in self defense or for survival?

And if that is the case - at the very least, all human life is or should be sacred. How can you possibly approve of war or the death penalty?

And yes, I am digressing from the topic.

[numinus]

No, it isn't percieved suffering in the sense that the living creature has a nervous system, pain receptors and burning is known to be extremely painful by those who have survived such incidents. It is perceived in the sense that I am percieving that potential for suffering in another being - but then, that is what empathy is all about and empathy for another creatures suffering is an attribute of a higher animal.

Disagree. The imperative to save human life, in whatever form it manifests, does not make any distinctions on this basis.


I'm not sure what you are asking me here...

There is something dreadfully wrong in assigning relative values to human life - especially when you base these values on perception alone. If you view the life of, say an adult as having more worth than that of a fetus, what is stopping you from doing the same with rich and poor, healthy and infirm, old and young, etc.? You would be perpetuating a defective premise to its absurd conclusion.

Biologically speaking you certain conditions need to exist to experience suffering (pain receptors, nervous system, brain) and to experience fear and anticipation of suffering (some sort of higher consciousness). That part (perception of pain) can be measured in fairly objective ways. If the necessary biological components are missing - is there suffering?

Mathmatics is not a language I understand well enough to debate in.

I was refering to bentham's utilitarianism, where he formulated a numerical scale for human pain and pleasure. And because of this, he thought he has discovered the mathematics of ethics. Plain nonsense.

You are associating the imperative of life with the amount of suffering - that is, the relationship between a stimuli and reaction, no? From this point of view, there is no difference between a comatose person or the fetus - the least people covered with this imperative.

This contradicts the very essence of an imperative, does it not? A moral or categorical imperative is a command of reason. The more helpless the human being, the stronger the imperative to protect, no? Surely, the strong is the least likely to be in need of protection.

And so, what you consider as borderline permissible when it comes to killing, is in fact, the more heinous to human reason.

It makes plenty of sense.

Which causes more suffering:

a clean bullet to the head or hacking a live animal up with an ax?

putting an animal through a stressful shipping experience, long waits in an unfamiliar chutes and stockyards where it can sense the panic of slaughtering (smell of blood, what ever noises are made) or local slaughter at facility designed to reduce stress and a quick relatively painless death? (look up Temple Grandin's book)

This isn't just "bleeding heart" talking here either - stress and suffering produce biochemical changes in the animal that can be objectively measured. Behavior can also be measured though that is more subjective.

Regardless of the manner in which we slaughter animals for food, eating is a necessity for human survival.

Humans are animals. We consider ourselves "higher animals". Why? One reason is that we have the potential for empathy and compassion that transcends species. We have the ability to see beyond the immediate of stomach and sex. Because of this compassion we see the embryo as a potential human being and we see other living creatures as beings that can experience suffering too.

That is not the point. Human survival cannot be made contingent on the suffering (or lack of suffering) in animals. It should be the other way around - that the worth of an animal's life depends on how it's life pertains to human survival.

Anyway, I do not agree that humans are animals, although it may be helpful to think that way for taxonomical purposes, or understanding biology and physiology.

It depends on the situation and the stranger I think.

LOL. That's a scary thought.

You did not end the life. You can not be held morally responsible for the lives you could not save but you could be held morally responsible for not trying to save any at all.

I was refering to stem cell research. You need the stem cells from a live fetus, no? And in harvesting the stem cell, you kill the fetus, no?

So you are, in fact, killing one to save the life of another.

Why just human life? What makes human life - in any form - so special?

What do you mean?

Because humans are rational. And you need rationality to discern the principles in your own actions. So, only a rational being can be made to act according to a moral good.

Or, because the life in yourself is fundamentally the same as the life in another. So an imperative to save your own life carries the same weight as the imperative to save the life of another.

As for the worth of an animal's life, it should be contingent to human life, in the same way that the prey's life is contingent to its predator.

PaleRider says the law. But I'm looking for something more to convince me. I believe he will accuse me of mental masturbation but I find this kind of discussion interesting.

When we talk about abortion I am looking at it as ending a potential life and yes I use the word potential - not potential human, I do not argue that, but potential life. Do we have the right to end ANY life that is not in self defense or for survival?

No.

A categorical imperative accrues to no other good but itself. Therefore, no further justification is required. Nor is there other subjective conditions that would make it otherwise.

Remember how an infinite regress is irrational? The reasoning is the same. At some point, you arrive at a good in and of itself.

And if that is the case - at the very least, all human life is or should be sacred. How can you possibly approve of war or the death penalty?

I don't.

And yes, I am digressing from the topic.

It was worth it.

[Coyote]

Disagree. The imperative to save human life, in whatever form it manifests, does not make any distinctions on this basis.


What makes it an imperative?


There is something dreadfully wrong in assigning relative values to human life - especially when you base these values on perception alone. If you view the life of, say an adult as having more worth than that of a fetus, what is stopping you from doing the same with rich and poor, healthy and infirm, old and young, etc.? You would be perpetuating a defective premise to its absurd conclusion.


I see your point but - can't any premise be taken to a ridiculous extreme? For example preserving human life at all costs? I'm thinking of the sorts of choices doctors in emergency triage situations have to make all the time or keeping people who are braindead on life support.


I was refering to bentham's utilitarianism, where he formulated a numerical scale for human pain and pleasure. And because of this, he thought he has discovered the mathematics of ethics. Plain nonsense.

Interesting that someone would even think to apply mathmatics to ethics...I would agree, it does sound like nonsense.


You are associating the imperative of life with the amount of suffering - that is, the relationship between a stimuli and reaction, no? From this point of view, there is no difference between a comatose person or the fetus - the least people covered with this imperative.

Yes perhaps - but if you could only choose to save some, which should you save and using what criteria?


This contradicts the very essence of an imperative, does it not? A moral or categorical imperative is a command of reason. The more helpless the human being, the stronger the imperative to protect, no? Surely, the strong is the least likely to be in need of protection.


But isn't that then assigning relative values to it?


And so, what you consider as borderline permissible when it comes to killing, is in fact, the more heinous to human reason.


Both the baby and the fetus are equally helpless to escape the situation unaided - how do you then make your choice?


Regardless of the manner in which we slaughter animals for food, eating is a necessity for human survival.


I agree that eating is necessary for human survival. I agree that eating meat is as well in many cultures.

But if we are a moral and ethical species - then do we not have a moral obligation to the other species who's freedom we have curtailed?

Another poster said something along the lines of this: if we have the ability to affect the happiness or suffering of another animal, then we have an ethical obligation to that animal. (I'm not quoting this right - I can't remember it exactly).


That is not the point. Human survival cannot be made contingent on the suffering (or lack of suffering) in animals. It should be the other way around - that the worth of an animal's life depends on how it's life pertains to human survival.


I disagree - though in practice that is the case. Ghandi said that the true test of a civilization's ethics was in how it treats it's animals and I think it is a sense of larger ethics (rather than just our own species) which seperates us from the rest of animals.


Anyway, I do not agree that humans are animals, although it may be helpful to think that way for taxonomical purposes, or understanding biology and physiology.


Well...what makes humans not animals? What makes them different?


LOL. That's a scary thought.


Ahh come on - don't tell me if you had a choice between rescuing Adolph Hitler or your dog you'd wouldn't choose your dog? (on second thought don't answer):D


What do you mean?

Because humans are rational. And you need rationality to discern the principles in your own actions. So, only a rational being can be made to act according to a moral good.


How can you tell whether or not another species is rational?



Or, because the life in yourself is fundamentally the same as the life in another. So an imperative to save your own life carries the same weight as the imperative to save the life of another.


It's biologically the same - but is biology all that matters? Or is the fact that it is a life that is important?


As for the worth of an animal's life, it should be contingent to human life, in the same way that the prey's life is contingent to its predator.


Why?

If you remove an animals means to survive on it's own in it's natural environment (through domestication) don't you have a moral obligation to it - an ethical responsibility for it's wellbeing?

If you are not hungry and not in danger, then what is the value of another animals life?


No.


Do you mean "No" - we do not have the right to end ANY life that is not in self defense or for survival? In otherwords - not just human life?


A categorical imperative accrues to no other good but itself. Therefore, no further justification is required. Nor is there other subjective conditions that would make it otherwise.

Remember how an infinite regress is irrational? The reasoning is the same. At some point, you arrive at a good in and of itself.


Can you give me some examples of categorical imperatives then? Surely - the sacredness of all life would fall in that?


I don't.


Though we will, and do - disagree on many things, I respect that a great deal :)

[r0beph]

Disagree. The imperative to save human life, in whatever form it manifests, does not make any distinctions on this basis.



There is something dreadfully wrong in assigning relative values to human life - especially when you base these values on perception alone. If you view the life of, say an adult as having more worth than that of a fetus, what is stopping you from doing the same with rich and poor, healthy and infirm, old and young, etc.? You would be perpetuating a defective premise to its absurd conclusion.



I was refering to bentham's utilitarianism, where he formulated a numerical scale for human pain and pleasure. And because of this, he thought he has discovered the mathematics of ethics. Plain nonsense.[quote]
on the contrary while his idealism is way off, math could be used in the application of ethics, given that we had an omnipotent grip on ALL values contained therein, however, this is completely implausible and we definitely don't have the ability to do it. But, don't disregard the fact that it COULD exist, it would simply require way more data than we could ever hope to acquire in the situations in which it would be applied.


[quote]You are associating the imperative of life with the amount of suffering - that is, the relationship between a stimuli and reaction, no? From this point of view, there is no difference between a comatose person or the fetus - the least people covered with this imperative.
Sort of, however, a fetus has no bonding agent to the many at large. Don't take that the wrong way, but I'm simply saying that there is no reaction (suffering) by those who "know" the fetus, when it expires. Comatose persons, differ greatly in this. A good example of the similarity is found in comatose persons with no family, life support will not be around for them for long, unless they by prearrangement have taken care of this facet. While one could liken a fetus' chance of becoming a person to a comatose person who MAY recover, one must also assume that since a chance of recovery exists in those comatose persons they still may be effected by their own death since their brain is functioning on some level, typically (as with schaivo (spelling?)) this creates a serious situation in which a determination must be heavily weighed in on. All in all coyote is quite correct in his statement.


This contradicts the very essence of an imperative, does it not? A moral or categorical imperative is a command of reason. The more helpless the human being, the stronger the imperative to protect, no? Surely, the strong is the least likely to be in need of protection.
What defines strong? What defines weak? And what imperative do I have to protect the weak? If you had a feeble old woman at a bank during a robbery, and a young (16-18) male who was completely healthy, who would you choose to save if that choice was given to you and you knew surely the other was to die? Would you choose the one who could keel over tomorrow from a stroke? Would you choose the one who will more likely survive for another 70 years without ail?


And so, what you consider as borderline permissible when it comes to killing, is in fact, the more heinous to human reason.
Human reason has many heinous facets....and it is also relative.


Regardless of the manner in which we slaughter animals for food, eating is a necessity for human survival.
and one can survive on vegetables alone, millions do it...not me, but that is still an invalid argument. The amount of food created in the space it takes to raise the animal for slaughter is much greater than the meat produced by far.


That is not the point. Human survival cannot be made contingent on the suffering (or lack of suffering) in animals. It should be the other way around - that the worth of an animal's life depends on how it's life pertains to human survival.
so I suppose since animals go extinct every year in the rain forests chopped down for the wood and for placement of crops, its ok, since the food grown there in the forests place is for the greater good of the humans.


Anyway, I do not agree that humans are animals, although it may be helpful to think that way for taxonomical purposes, or understanding biology and physiology.
we are animals, you can't define us outside that, we are what we are. of course it'll digress into a religious argument if you deny this I'm sure, as that is the only outlet, and it lacks reason.



I was refering to stem cell research. You need the stem cells from a live fetus, no? And in harvesting the stem cell, you kill the fetus, no?

So you are, in fact, killing one to save the life of another.

re read up on some of that stem cell research, the reason for the fetus' termination is not to gather the stem cells in those cases, many laws exist worldwide to ensure that stem cells are not harvested this way. It's more in line with organ donation, you're dead, why throw away what could save another?


What do you mean?

Because humans are rational. And you need rationality to discern the principles in your own actions. So, only a rational being can be made to act according to a moral good.

Or, because the life in yourself is fundamentally the same as the life in another. So an imperative to save your own life carries the same weight as the imperative to save the life of another.

As for the worth of an animal's life, it should be contingent to human life, in the same way that the prey's life is contingent to its predator.

Delusions of human grandeur, we think therefor we rule. We exist in such large numbers and as we do because we reached this pinnacle, there are many animals in existence which show rationality.

Vultures, in egypt, often use rocks to break open the shells of ostrich eggs becuase they can't do it themselves since the eggs are too hard.

Woodpecker finches use improvised tools to pry grubs out of wood, observers have seen first a finch trying to pry the grubs out of a log, when this didn't work, it grabbed a twig in its beak and attempted again succeeding. Another finch was observed clipping off a part of a forked twig to fashion a tool for such usage.

Green herons are seen dropping small rocks into water to fool fish into thinking it is food at which point they swoop down and grab them. This behavior may arise from a pebble or such accidentally being dropped into the water and the heron seeing it attracts the fish, this is a very difficult connection to make between accidentally dropping a pebble and then using it as bait. It isn't seen in all green herons and is in fact rare, which means it isn't just a behavior that they all possess but rather likely something rationalized.


Chimpanzees are very adept and coming up with rationalized tool usage. Chimps playing with a stick figured out how to open its cage and escaped, they also often use sticks to get things from high areas and then drag it into their cages when it falls using sticks.

Another example of primate ingenuity lies in the hooded monkey, who not only used a stick, but fashioned a crude spoon by splitting a hollow read to scoop yogurt out of a tube too small for their hands.

these are all examples of rationality in animals...rationality is NOT what seperates us from them.




rf;

[numinus]

What makes it an imperative?

An imperative is a command of reason that relates an action to its rational end. It may be both subjective or objective.

A subjective end, hence a subjective imperative, is merely a means to a higher end. An objective end, hence a categorical imperative, no longer acrues to a higher end but itself.

I see your point but - can't any premise be taken to a ridiculous extreme? For example preserving human life at all costs? I'm thinking of the sorts of choices doctors in emergency triage situations have to make all the time or keeping people who are braindead on life support.

A logical premise cannot give rise to an illogical conclusion - except through defective reasoning. We know a fallacious premise when the application of sound reasoning leads to a fallacious conclusion.

Example. Naive set theory results in the barber's or russell's paradox. Hence, naive set theory is a fallacy and must be replaced by the more formalized axiomatic set theory.

There are very compeling reasons to be skeptical about 'brain-dead' states. My wife was in a comma for almost a month. Prognosis indicated massive brain damage. She awoke one morning, as if she was merely asleep a fortnight. Aside from partial memory loss, she is fine, with occassional (annual to bi-annual) siezures. She even remembers her dream of a fenced-in garden in full bloom and an unidentified presence nearby. Oh, and she felt so tired in the dream, prompting her to look for an entrance to the garden to rest.

Interesting that someone would even think to apply mathmatics to ethics...I would agree, it does sound like nonsense.

You need to read it to begin to understand the extent of his nonsense. That is utilitarianism at its absurd worst.

Yes perhaps - but if you could only choose to save some, which should you save and using what criteria?

The answer is there, in the conditions you have set for this particular situation. One cannot be held to conform to a categorical imperative when he is powerless to do so. Some will inevitably die, some, with another's help will live. And it is enough for the medical practitioner to do his best under such circumstances - save, alleviate the suffering, hope, whatever it takes to uphold human life and dignity.

But isn't that then assigning relative values to it?

No. It is assigning the moral worth of an action - not assigning relative worth to human life.

Both the baby and the fetus are equally helpless to escape the situation unaided - how do you then make your choice?

There are sins of commission and sins of omission. And even in omission, there is a difference between a conscious choice to do nothing and being powerless to do something.

Under all these circumstances, one is given the rational faculty to discern and act accordingly.

I agree that eating is necessary for human survival. I agree that eating meat is as well in many cultures.

But if we are a moral and ethical species - then do we not have a moral obligation to the other species who's freedom we have curtailed?

Correct. As long as such an obligation does not supersede our obligations to ourselves and our fellow man.

Another poster said something along the lines of this: if we have the ability to affect the happiness or suffering of another animal, then we have an ethical obligation to that animal. (I'm not quoting this right - I can't remember it exactly).

Happiness and misery, as transient or ephemeral emotional states, are not themselves indicative of a good, no? We are obliged to conform to a good, and not to a calculation of pleasure and pain. And this simple assertion results in the concept of duty.

I disagree - though in practice that is the case. Ghandi said that the true test of a civilization's ethics was in how it treats it's animals and I think it is a sense of larger ethics (rather than just our own species) which seperates us from the rest of animals.

There is no contradiction.

Caring for the environment, that is, conforming to its natural balance as closely as possible, is in the best interest of everyone, including ourselves.

Well...what makes humans not animals? What makes them different?

The ability to discern good as the end of his actions.

Ahh come on - don't tell me if you had a choice between rescuing Adolph Hitler or your dog you'd wouldn't choose your dog? (on second thought don't answer):D

Nothing would give me more pleasure than for hitler to have been pronounced guilty under the operation of law, and face the punishment provided for by that law.

He needed to be captured alive for that to happen, didn't he?

How can you tell whether or not another species is rational?

That is a very difficult question. You are talking of the nature of an existence as a whole. It is impossible to define to an arbitrary degree of exactness - since such a nature would necessarily include the concept of inherent potential.

It's biologically the same - but is biology all that matters? Or is the fact that it is a life that is important?

On the contrary, we are not biologically the same. Some would have a superior 'biology' than others. Sameness can only be valid in view of a particular existence or being.

Why?

If you remove an animals means to survive on it's own in it's natural environment (through domestication) don't you have a moral obligation to it - an ethical responsibility for it's wellbeing?

As I said, the ethical responsibility exist in so fas as it pertains to our survival. And by survival, not merely a biological existence, but human existence as well. This includes the conditions of human dignity.

If you are not hungry and not in danger, then what is the value of another animals life?

Do you mean "No" - we do not have the right to end ANY life that is not in self defense or for survival? In otherwords - not just human life?

Include the conditions of human dignity. Having made the rational calculations, and finding no reason to kill an animal to uphold these conditions, then one shouldn't kill the animal.

Can you give me some examples of categorical imperatives then? Surely - the sacredness of all life would fall in that?

I can't find my book on kantian ethics so I would have to make do with something I googled:

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kantsgrounding/summary.html

Since specific interests, circumstances, and consequences cannot be considered, the moral "law" must be a general formula that is applicable in all situations. Rather than commanding specific actions, it must express the principle that actions should be undertaken with pure motives, without consideration of consequences, and out of pure reverence for the law. The formula that meets these criteria is the following: we should act in such a way that we could want the maxim (the motivating principle) of our action to become a universal law. People have a decent intuitive sense for this law. Still, it is helpful for philosophy to state the law clearly so that people can keep it in mind.

It is nearly impossible to find examples of pure moral actions. Nearly every action we observe can be attributed to some interest or motivation other than pure morality. Yet this should not discourage us, for moral principles come from reason, not from experience. Indeed, moral principles could not come from experience, for all experiences depend on particular circumstances, whereas moral principles must have absolute validity, independent of all circumstances.

Because it applies in all circumstances, reason's fundamental moral principle may be called the "categorical imperative." The categorical imperative may be expressed according to the same formula as the moral law: act only in such a way that you could want the maxim (the motivating principle) of your action to become a universal law. When people violate the categorical imperative, they apply a different standard to their own behavior than they would want applied to everyone else in the form of a universal law. This is a contradiction that violates principles of reason.

The categorical imperative may also be formulated as a requirement that we must not treat other rational beings as mere means to our own purposes. Rational beings have the capacity to pursue predetermined objectives ("ends") by means of their will, yet in pursuing their goals they never think of themselves as mere means to another purpose; they are themselves the purpose of their actions- -they are "ends in themselves. If we treat other rational beings as mere means, we contradict the fact that all rational beings are ends in themselves. In this case, our principles could not be universal laws, and we would violate the categorical imperative.

Though we will, and do - disagree on many things, I respect that a great deal :)

I find your opinions quite critical too.

[numinus]

on the contrary while his idealism is way off, math could be used in the application of ethics, given that we had an omnipotent grip on ALL values contained therein, however, this is completely implausible and we definitely don't have the ability to do it. But, don't disregard the fact that it COULD exist, it would simply require way more data than we could ever hope to acquire in the situations in which it would be applied.

No. Ethics can never be derived from the 'mathematical' calculations of pleasure and pain.

A simple pleasure - extrapolated exponentially - can prove to be just as painful.

Sort of, however, a fetus has no bonding agent to the many at large. Don't take that the wrong way, but I'm simply saying that there is no reaction (suffering) by those who "know" the fetus, when it expires. Comatose persons, differ greatly in this. A good example of the similarity is found in comatose persons with no family, life support will not be around for them for long, unless they by prearrangement have taken care of this facet. While one could liken a fetus' chance of becoming a person to a comatose person who MAY recover, one must also assume that since a chance of recovery exists in those comatose persons they still may be effected by their own death since their brain is functioning on some level, typically (as with schaivo (spelling?)) this creates a serious situation in which a determination must be heavily weighed in on. All in all coyote is quite correct in his statement.

Wrong.

Morality is a statement of what we OUGHT to do as against what we WANT to do. Devising a morality that is left to the vagaries of an individual's sentiment contradicts the very essence of morality.

What defines strong? What defines weak? And what imperative do I have to protect the weak? If you had a feeble old woman at a bank during a robbery, and a young (16-18) male who was completely healthy, who would you choose to save if that choice was given to you and you knew surely the other was to die? Would you choose the one who could keel over tomorrow from a stroke? Would you choose the one who will more likely survive for another 70 years without ail?

Strong and weak can be defined by the amount of help from everyone else necessary to uphold life and human dignity within that individual.

While the situations change - the imperatives remain THE SAME.

Human reason has many heinous facets....and it is also relative.

No. Human ACTIONS have many heinous facets - not human reason.

and one can survive on vegetables alone, millions do it...not me, but that is still an invalid argument. The amount of food created in the space it takes to raise the animal for slaughter is much greater than the meat produced by far.

What are you talking about????

Vegetarian diets are not adviceable on physically developing children and adults who are required strenous physical tasks.

so I suppose since animals go extinct every year in the rain forests chopped down for the wood and for placement of crops, its ok, since the food grown there in the forests place is for the greater good of the humans.

Duh???

Human exploitation of his natural environment must be limited to what is SUSTAINABLE. Otherwise, he is doing harm to himself, or to future human beings. Environmental engineering was developed precisely to mitigate the adverse effects of human intervention in the enviroment.

we are animals, you can't define us outside that, we are what we are. of course it'll digress into a religious argument if you deny this I'm sure, as that is the only outlet, and it lacks reason.

You are the one presenting a 'we are what we are' argument and I'm the one who lacks reason, eh?

Do you have any control on the depth of nonsense your opinions stoop to.

re read up on some of that stem cell research, the reason for the fetus' termination is not to gather the stem cells in those cases, many laws exist worldwide to ensure that stem cells are not harvested this way. It's more in line with organ donation, you're dead, why throw away what could save another?

No. There are particular stem cells that are harvested exclusively from live fetus, aside from those from human organs. At least that is my understanding of it.

Delusions of human grandeur, we think therefor we rule. We exist in such large numbers and as we do because we reached this pinnacle, there are many animals in existence which show rationality.

Rational enough to discern and act according to principles that are good?

The only 'delusions of grandeur' around here manifests when you pretend your opinions has any intellectual worth.

Vultures, in egypt, often use rocks to break open the shells of ostrich eggs becuase they can't do it themselves since the eggs are too hard.

Woodpecker finches use improvised tools to pry grubs out of wood, observers have seen first a finch trying to pry the grubs out of a log, when this didn't work, it grabbed a twig in its beak and attempted again succeeding. Another finch was observed clipping off a part of a forked twig to fashion a tool for such usage.

Green herons are seen dropping small rocks into water to fool fish into thinking it is food at which point they swoop down and grab them. This behavior may arise from a pebble or such accidentally being dropped into the water and the heron seeing it attracts the fish, this is a very difficult connection to make between accidentally dropping a pebble and then using it as bait. It isn't seen in all green herons and is in fact rare, which means it isn't just a behavior that they all possess but rather likely something rationalized.

Chimpanzees are very adept and coming up with rationalized tool usage. Chimps playing with a stick figured out how to open its cage and escaped, they also often use sticks to get things from high areas and then drag it into their cages when it falls using sticks.

Another example of primate ingenuity lies in the hooded monkey, who not only used a stick, but fashioned a crude spoon by splitting a hollow read to scoop yogurt out of a tube too small for their hands.

these are all examples of rationality in animals...rationality is NOT what seperates us from them.

rf;

These are all examples of rationality, eh?

No wonder you post nonsense in such quantity and depth. Your standard of rationality is ridiculously low.