I’ve disabled the requirement to “register” before posting, at least for now. If the spammers find me, I’ll have to turn it back on. But for now, it’s off.
“If I prick my finger and spill a drop of blood, those cells have chromosomes that came from both my parents. Is spilling a drop of blood and letting those cells die, murder?… If you define “life” to be as little as one cell with 46 chromosomes, then how many times do I commit murder when I nick myself shaving?”
Do you really not see the distinction here? Those chromosomes came from you, which ties into the larger point. Your blood cells are a part of your tissue (specifically your blood), just as a hepatocyte is a part of your liver. They’re not organisms, they’re a part of an organism (in this case you).
“The thing is, most “single cell is LIFE!” folks are religious people”
Don’t I know it; it’s something that as an agnostic I find quite frustrating at times.
“because they generally view it as some magical mystical “soul” enters that single cell immediately after conception and killing the cell is killing the soul. But it doesn’t require the person be religious.”
Meh. I don’t know if we have such a thing as a “soul”, and quite frankly I don’t care. One can hold a valid position for completely irrelevant (or even wrong) reasons. Doubtless there are plenty of people in this country who would say that theft and murder are wrong “because the ten commandments say so!”
“There is no subjective experience of being alive in a single cell organism.”
Just as there is no subjective experience of being in a vegetative state, eh? Heck, for that matter, do you remember your first few months of life? You make this claim with the self-assurance of it being absolute fact, but how can you speak for anyone’s experience other than your own?
“what is different between what you’re doing and someone anthropomorphising an inanimate object.”
Well, the most obvious would be that a conceptus is not an inanimate object, whatever else it might be.
“What is it to be human? And rather than come up with the “right” answer, you chose the answer that satisfied your own requirement that it be the “least arbitrary”…”
That’s because “least arbitrary” and “most objective”, so far as I can reason, are how we ought to find the *best* (or right, if you prefer) answer. Otherwise you’re going to have to go by gut instinct, which is what I guess I take you to be implying? The problem therein is that what “feels” right is even more variable between people. Whose gut instinct are we going to go by in crafting the laws we live by? Yours? Mine? Jerry Fallwell’s? When it comes to issues such as this, I guarantee you that there are those who would just as soon judge someone who was born with a trisomy (or hermaphroditic, for that matter) as less-than-human, based on how they “feel”.
“Least arbitrary has nothing to do with whether it is the RIGHT definition.”
All right; how do we go about finding the best/right definition? And that’s not a rhetorical question, I’m genuinely interested in better learning your thoughts and perspective.
If I may observe, I’ve noted a tendency of yours, usually in reference to libertarian thought, to raise a hue and cry against “arbitrary” rules that “just so happen to fit one’s views of right and wrong”. If I may be so bold, is that not what people of *every* school of thought and politic do? Our (libertarians’)views may be arbitrary, then, but at least they are the most permissive and respectful of individual autonomy, something I believe to be an absolute (“God-given” if I were religious, I suppose), right. (I suppose you’ll see a strain of irony in that statement, given the context of the discussion).
How I should love to sit with you over a pot of tea and biscuits! I’ve often dwelt upon your screeds, and wondered where the crux of the differences in philosophy might lie, and of what nature they might be. Out of curiosity, satisfy me one random question, if you would: Duty to rescue laws, thumbs up or down?
“Do you really not see the distinction here? Those chromosomes came from you, which ties into the larger point. Your blood cells are a part of your tissue (specifically your blood), just as a hepatocyte is a part of your liver. They’re not organisms, they’re a part of an organism (in this case you).”
Well, then the chromosomes and their source doesn’t matter. I could take one of my cells and have it cloned into something that would grow into a fully independent person. All the chromosomes come from me, but at some poitn it would be human.
you just changed your measure from chromosomes to “organism” versus “part of an organism”.
Did you know that cell-count wise, you’re mostly individual organisms? Bacteria cells outnumber “human” cells by 100 to 1. Many of them are extremely important for the human portion of you to survive. But they’re “organisms”, not part of your organism. they have their own DNA, not copies of your dna.
Greg: “There is no subjective experience of being alive in a single cell organism.”
Amitava: “Just as there is no subjective experience of being in a vegetative state, eh? … how can you speak for anyone’s experience other than your own?”
That argument would require that no doctor would be able to follow any person’s living will to not put them on life support if there was no chance of recovery, because, hey, how do we know what their *subjective* experience is, right?
I think if I were in a vegatative state and there was no hope of recovery, that I should be able to choose to have life support withdrawn. But that’s a subjective thing. What exactly is “vegatative”? The whole terri schiavo fiasco centered around a bunch of religious people trying to argue that she was NOT in a vegatative state, that she was responding to simulus. But the truth was she WAS in a vegatative state, she was NOT responsive to outside stimulus, and she had no hope of recovery. Some of that can be objective, Schiavo’s autopsy showed that something like three-quarters of her brain had liquified, but still, it comes down to a subjective call on whether or not she is having a subjective experience.
A fertilized egg has no subjective experience. Has no experience of pain or happiness or hunger or joy. It has no history of a subjective experience. It only has a *potential* for eventually *becoming* something that *can* have a subjective experience.
A fertilized egg has no more subjective experience than a single red blood cell.
Amitava: “I’ve noted a tendency of yours, usually in reference to libertarian thought, to raise a hue and cry against “arbitrary” rules that “just so happen to fit one’s views of right and wrong”. If I may be so bold, is that not what people of *every* school of thought and politic do?”
No. I come up with what I think is a moral system for living, and then I try to live by it, even if it is inconvenient for me personally. Morality is a systemic thing. It comes up with a set of rules that respects individuals but works for the society as a whole as well.
For example, the golden rule is a good starting point to demonstrate the issue. A pure individualist would never adopt the golden rule for their own behavior, because it creates scenarios where they would ahve to make choices that would sacrifice their own self interest.
“Our (libertarians’)views may be arbitrary, then, but at least they are the most permissive and respectful of individual autonomy, something I believe to be an absolute (“God-given” if I were religious, I suppose), right.”
Individual interest and societal interests are not the same. There is no morality in individual interests. Me doing whatever I want to do is not morality, its just me being selfish. There’s nothing innately wrong about being selfish in and of itself. But when an individual is selfish at the expense of everyone else, for example a theif, then selfishness runs into morality.
The way I try to find the moral solution is to come up with a set of rules that doesn’t identify individual people by name, but rather identify what people do based on their actions, their roles. Then I try to “simulate” what would happen if those rules were applied to the situation, and each time I simulate, I put myself in a different role in the scenario. If I were the thief, if I were the person being thieved from, if I were a bystander, if I were a random citizen, and so on.
For it to be moral, it has to satisfy being moral from every point of view, not just the poitn of view I happen to be in at the moment.
And this means that sometimes, society has to be able to tell individuals what to do and what they can’t do. Outlawing theft being a simple example.
Libertarians will agree to outlaw theft and physical violence, but they fail to see that two individuals, acting for their individual self interest, will sometimes end up with a result much worse than if society can create regulations up front.
The prisoner’s dillemma being the common example. Tragedy of the commons being another. Both show how two individuals, acting in their self interest can bring about a result that is far worse for themselves and everyone, than if regulation were to be put in place.
Simplest example is FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Regulation created by the government after self-feeding panic created runs on banks that in part caused the Great Depression. I think banks should be required to pay into FDIC to prevent these kinds of runs on banks in teh future. But if I were a selfish bank, I could save money if I dind’t pay FDIC, and undercut my competitors. So I won’t CHOOSE to pay FDIC. And me, as a customer, would rather go to the bank that lowers its fees and pays higher interest because that bank isn’t paying into FDIC. So me as a selfish customer, don’t want FDIC either. But if no one has FDIC, bank runs can occur. So you have to make it a *mandatory* regulation.
Individuals freely choosing only what is in their self interest will create situation that put all of society in peril. Uninsured banks being one example.
“Duty to rescue laws, thumbs up or down?”
Thumbs down. And I say that as someone who was certified as an EMT many, many years ago. If you’re a doctor or paramedic or emt, then you should render aid as your training dictates. As a medical professional, you shouldn’t ignore someone who is dying just because you don’t feel like it or because you don’t like the other person’s politics or religion. But random person on teh street, no. Most random people off the street don’t know what to do, and don’t know how to help safely. A lot of EMT training was stressing the importance of NOT rushing in before making sure the scene is safe. Otherwise, you end up being another patient they have to deal with in addition to teh one already there.
Going back to the scalzithread – “it DOES require that the person essentially commit the fallacy of reification, that “life” is some physical objective thing, without any regard for the subjective experience.”
One can make definitions of life that would be amenable to physical objective measurement, and that would easily encompass all people with subjective experiences.
“From a strictly rational perspective, the *least* arbitrary line I can think of that can be drawn between “human being” and “non-human being” is the moment of fertilization, when you have an individual human organism with that which distinguishes every human from another: 46 chromosomes consisting of a unique genetic code equally derived from equally from each of its parents.”
First off, being least arbitrary is a finite advantage that can be overcome by other factors. Second, That may not even be the least arbitrary.
After all, why restrict to ‘human’? Do only humans have moral weight? Does the suffering of animals mean nothing at all? What do we do if we encounter sapient aliens, or build artificial general intelligences with desires?
Chances are pretty good you assign *some* weight to animal suffering, would an equal share to sapient aliens. You could also assign moral weight to such AI. I’ll suppose that’s the case so I can continue.
What rule led you to that? It’s a pretty good chance it boils down to the presence of cognition.
Firstly, to Drachefly: “After all, why restrict to ‘human’? Do only humans have moral weight? Does the suffering of animals mean nothing at all?”
Ah, animal rights! This gets interesting. For all practical purposes, “rights” are whatever we, as a society, determine them to be. I personally don’t go by cognition; for me it’s either “human” or “non-human”. Rights can only exist concomitantly with responsibility, something that no other creature I’m aware of is capable of assuming. We can of course certainly choose to grant animals rights, although in general I am suspicious of doing so since it’s almost always based on sentiment rather than reason, and inconsistently applied. Consider, by way of example: if I shoot a dog or a horse in the head, chances are I might be written up on animal cruelty. Do it to a cow or a pig, though? (The latter which is likely the most intelligent of all, BTW). Why that’s just animal husbandry, and all in a day’s work!
Greg: Thanks for the TED link! I remember seeing a lecture there once before, I want to say on architecture, but I’m not too sure.
“you just changed your measure from chromosomes to “organism” versus “part of an organism”.”
Well, no. If you read back to my original post in Mr. Scalzi’s blog, you’ll see that I specifically based the dividing line on “when you have an individual human organism” (which was in turn based upon chromosomes).
“That argument would require that no doctor would be able to follow any person’s living will to not put them on life support if there was no chance of recovery, because, hey, how do we know what their *subjective* experience is, right?”
I’m not sure how that follows. Abortion is a positive action, desisting from placing someone on life support is not. There’s a sharp distinction between killing someone and allowing them to die. I think it would be more analagous to say that a doctor would *be allowed* to unilaterally terminate a patient’s life support because he or she determined that they had no worthwhile subjective life experience.
“A fertilized egg has no subjective experience. Has no experience of pain or happiness or hunger or joy. It has no history of a subjective experience…A fertilized egg has no more subjective experience than a single red blood cell.”
Perhaps not, but one is an individual human organism, the other is not. But is the ability to feel pain what you suggest to use as a metric? Anencephalic infants with the misfortune of being born alive are almost always bereft of the ability to feel pain (or really anything, for that matter). And yet we as a society do not allow them to be smothered or drowned or shoot them up with potassium chloride. Would you not consider that murder? (Incidentally, you might find intriguing the case of Baby K, one such baby who was kept alive for an unheard of several months in such a state.)
“Individual interest and societal interests are not the same.” Not always, no. But you take it for granted that an individual can only exist as a unit in a larger whole, that to live is to inherently be a part of a society. That’s an assumption I don’t share. It may be true for most people (it certainly is for me), but should one have the means and wherewithal to live independently of the larger system, then the only power which a government may legitimately assume (cue your eyeroll) is to keep that person from hurting other people. They cannot be forced to help another person, or be prevented from harming themselves.
“For it to be moral, it has to satisfy being moral from every point of view”
Do you really think you’d be able to find such a position?
You often bring up tragedy of the commons and prisoners’ dilemma in these discussions. But I wonder that there’s less conflict than one might suppose (for example regulating air pollution, something you’ve mentioned before, is something on which I agree with you. Unless you’re somehow able to contain the smoke from your burning leaves to the air over your property, then that’s an action that is affecting other folks without their consent.
“And me, as a customer, would rather go to the bank that lowers its fees and pays higher interest because that bank isn’t paying into FDIC. So me as a selfish customer, don’t want FDIC either.”
I find that hard to believe. I know you’re using a conceptual “you”, but you, Greg-whatever-your-surname-is, don’t strike me as unintelligent, foolhardy or shortsighted. Were FDIC an optional system, wouldn’t you still choose to deposit at a (slightly more expensive) FDIC-backed institution? I know I would. So would many others. But if someone wants to assume a greater risk by banking at a non-insured institution with a lower interest rate, who am I to stop them? Their bank will be the one liable to collapse, and if it’s an institution that’s prone to such risk-taking, then I’d argue that would be a good thing.
Oh yes, viz-a-viz the normal flora: as you stated, the symbiotic relationship many of them offer may be integral to our well being, and they may live within the human body, but they don’t comprise a part of the body itself. If you’ve ever had a colonoscopy, the bowel irrigation to which you were subjected beforehand would have cleaned out a considerable portion of that flora, but I wouldn’t make the argument that you lost any tissue (at least I’d hope not).
Amitava: “I’m not sure how that follows. Abortion is a positive action, desisting from placing someone on life support is not. There’s a sharp distinction between killing someone and allowing them to die.”
You do realize that people who are in vegative states might be able to breathe on their own and the way they die is they starve to death, yes? I question just how “passive” it is to let someone starve to death over the course of a couple weeks.
I think we ought to have a right to die, and be able to do so in an active manner with pain killers and whatever it takes, if the situation merits it and that’s what the individual chose. As it is, we call a feeding tube “life support” and that’s the only way we can legally honor someone’s living will.
Greg: A fertilized egg has no more subjective experience than a single red blood cell.”
Amitava: “Perhaps not, but one is an individual human organism, the other is not.”
That’s tautological. It isn’t “human” except that you said so. I don’t think its human.
“But is the ability to feel pain what you suggest to use as a metric?”
I keep saying the subjective experience is the metric, and that includes consciousness, awareness, recognition, memory, responsiveness, pain, and a whole slew of other metrics.
And yes, that makes it a messy definition, because the definition itself is subjective. But to throw that out and choose the “least arbitrary” simply to avoid that mess, doesn’t justify it as the *right* thing to do, only the “least arbitrary” definition to chose.
I’m perfectly fine with a level of subjectiveness being present in our democratic process. Subjectiveness allows for bad outcomes to occur, but our constitutional democracy as it is today is far, far, and away better than the sort of world we would have if people had to jetison their subjective experience of what is right and wrong, of what it means to be human, and come up with purely mechanical laws like “a fertilized egg is human simply because we can find no other definition that doesn’t require some subjective interpretation”.
Amitava: “Anencephalic infants”
Quoting Wikipedia: The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) describes the presentation of this condition as follows: “A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness, reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur.”
This describes pretty much Terri Schiavo’s state when she died. Half of her brain had atrophied by the time she died. I think she breathed on her own, and she had reflex actions, but those are functions more of the brain stem than of consciousness.
You know that in some states, you don’t need a living will, your spouse can make medical decisions for you? such as take you off life support? Which in some states includes a feeding tube?
Again, I think we ought to support some sort of “right to die” idea for people like Terri who have so much brain damage that they enter a vegetative state and have no hope of ever recovering. If they have a living will that says they would not want to be maintained in that condition, then they ought to be able to have pain medications administered, render any brain activity into cessation, and have some means of causing the heart to stop beating.
Terri died a long time before her body was finally put to rest.
I’ve had people very close to me tell me that their worst nightmare would be to be trapped in a vegatative state like Terri and be forced to live for decades like that. I think we should be able to honor their wishes if it came to that.
“Would you not consider that murder?”
Even if we did allow a “right to die”, in the case of anencephaly, it would be up to the parents, not the state. In the case of Terri Schiavo, it was a matter of the next of kin, her husband, to decide. It only because a circus when the state decided to intervene based off of some weird sense of righteousness that had nothing to do with Terri’s wishes.
Which is to say, allowing subjective definitions can allow people to abuse it the way they tried to use the state to impose their will on Terri Schiavo’s wishes. But better that, than to say subjectivity is too dangerous, we must find a wholly non-arbitrary definition.
“the case of Baby K, one such baby who was kept alive for an unheard of several months ”
Alive, but never conscious. Care would be up to the parents, but whatever the parents chose, Baby K was never conscious.
Amitava: “But you take it for granted that an individual can only exist as a unit in a larger whole, that to live is to inherently be a part of a society.”
Libertarians take for granted that there is no such thing as society. That is an assertion with no evidence.
I do not take for granted that even the Unabomber living in a shack in the woods gained benefit from society at large. The fact that society existed around him such that he benefitted from not having to personally fend off foreign invasion, that he did not have to fend off roving bands of thieves, and so on.
This is called the “free rider” problem. If everyone pitches in to pay for police, then someone could try to justify NOT paying for police, but still get the benefit of having police, then they become a free rider. Libertarians almost always (not saying you specifically are, but that they do in general) argue to be free riders in an existing society.
The argument sounds osmething like this: Society can chip in together to have a police force, have regulation, have all the benefits that they have, but, argues the libertarian, just let me have my freedom, let me “opt out” of all your regulations that have no real “moral standing”. Everyone ELSE can opt in voluntarily, but I should be able to be a free rider.
If we take the tragedy of the commons to its libertarian (i.e. no society) end, it really does end in TRAGEDY. The only reason it does NOT end in tragedy is because people realize they have to limit THEMSELVES and EVERYONE ELSE *equally*. They *regulate* the commons.
Amitava: “Were FDIC an optional system, wouldn’t you still choose to deposit at a (slightly more expensive) FDIC-backed institution? I know I would. So would many others. But if someone wants to assume a greater risk by banking at a non-insured institution with a lower interest rate, who am I to stop them?”
Because you and they are all part of the same *society*. You and they are all part of the same *economy*.
This is where libertarians fail. They think an individual can be his own economy. And they think somehow that if someone is an idiot and puts their money in an uninsured bank, and that bank fails, and everyone in that bank loses their money, the libertarian will *swear* that it won’t affect them. That those people are somehow in a *different* *economy* than the libertarian is in.
It doesn’t work that way.
We are individuals. AND we are connected in various ways as a society. And libertarians pretend those connections do not exist. They say things like “Society does not exist”.
In the case of FDIC, making FDIC optional creates a race to the bottom for society, with absolutely no benefit for society. The benefit to the individual is short term gain, profit for the bank and better rates for the customer, but those short term gains are wiped out if a bank run occurs. And if a bank run occurs, the gains are wiped out for those individuals AND for society.
So society regulates.
You want another example of society regulating itself and individuals? Corporations. You want to invest money in a business venture? Go for it. If they go under, you’re part owner, so you’re liable for any debts the business had. So debt collectors can go after the business owner’s personal money.
THe problem with that was that people would generally not INVEST in a business, because they could become liable for far more than they ever put into the company. Generally, the only way people would put money into a business was if they CONTROLLED teh company and got to make the decisions for the company. i.e. they owned it.
But not being able to get people to invest in your business venture meant you were limited in the amount of money your business could raise, would limit the size your business could grow to, would limit what your business could do.
This was the way it worked until the invention of the limited liability corporation.
From a societal poitn of view, having people be liable for all debts of a business results in no one investing in new business (except for the people who OWN and CONTROL the business). So, a government regulation was created. It said that you as an individual could invest money in a corporation, and your liability to that corporation would be limited to that investment. You could lose, at most, all the money you put into the corporation. ANy of your personal assets were untouchable to debt collectors and such.
This is an idea that can only be handled at a societal level. You can’t impliement the idea of a corporation at a “contractual” level, at the level of “individuals”. It has to be societal level regulation. If you invest in a corporation, your personal assets are off limits, and your liability is limited to the money you invested.
The limited liability corporation was a societal regulation that solved a Prisoner’s Dilemma problem of people’s personal assets being up for grabs if the business they invested in went under.
It is a strategic move.
If you don’t like society as a whole regulating individuals, then you should forgo teh limited liability corporation as a concept, and you should surrender any benefit you gain from the existence of Corporations. (hint, you can’t)
Libertarians pick and chose which regulations they oppose. And conveniently, they oppose regulations that hinder their selfish interests, but they are perfectly fine with societal regulations that help their selfish interests.
They oppose something like FDIC being mandatory, but they have no problem with society as a whole creating the concept of a Limited Liability Corporation to solve a prisoner’s dilemma problem.
Without Corporations, inviduals don’t invest, adn society doesn’t get the benefit of captialism. With corporations, individuals get the benefit of potential investments and society gets the benefit of a capitalist engine driving their economy.
Amitava: “Their bank will be the one liable to collapse, and if it’s an institution that’s prone to such risk-taking, then I’d argue that would be a good thing.”
The latest crash was a result of, in part, certain individuals being riskier than the economy as a whole could handle.
This is the libertarian fallacy that an individual is his own economy.
Hmm, I’m not getting redirected to any other website, sweepstakes or otherwise.
“I question just how “passive” it is to let someone starve to death over the course of a couple weeks.”
Unless if you’ve done something to keep them in confinement against their will, you’re still not killing them. I also support a right to die (you know in India if you attempt suicide, you can actually be imprisoned?), although I’m very cautious as to the extent to which we should allow physicians or other health care workers to be involved in the process.
“It isn’t “human” except that you said so. I don’t think its human.”
Hmm. I don’t presume to dictate your beliefs, but perhaps you mean “person” (which is what this famously boils down to, usually). Is not human an objective term, like dog, mammal, or chordate?
“But to throw that out and choose the “least arbitrary” simply to avoid that mess, doesn’t justify it as the *right* thing to do”
I’m not simply trying to avoid the mess (although I admit that my support of letting states decide their own policies in this *is* a way of at least minimizing the mess, so to speak). I sincerely believe that laws must be based upon logic and reason in order to be just. Gut instinct can be a fine thing; it can also quite nicely lead to sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, religious intolerance, and all their related kin. Try debating LGBT rights with a religious conservative who hasn’t personally known anyone gay, and you’ll quickly discover this.
“a fertilized egg is human simply because we can find no other definition that doesn’t require some subjective interpretation”.
Again, I try and base my position on rationality, although it’s not to the exclusion of my subjective feelings.
Re: Terri Schiavo and Baby K. Again, there is the crucial distinction between “letting die” and “killing”. In both vegetative states and anencephaly (or other birth defects of similar severity), the state doesn’t sanction smothering them with a pillow, or giving them a lethal injection. So let me make a distinction, then. For the sake of discussion, let’s leave aside the issue of a mother/parent’s obligation to their children. If a pregnancy could be terminated by the removal of the fetus and placenta from the uterine cavity (ie, without actively killing the organism), which were then allowed to die, I would have less objection.
Were you to ask my personal opinion on the endgame with abortion, I’d bet that the day we have a working artificial uterus will go a great deal towards the resolution of this issue.
You know I realize, looking at my timeposts, that you must be somewhere out on the West Coast?(or should I say *left* coast, hardeeharhar) I fully intend to respond to your second post, but for the moment, alas, I must go to work But hey, Friday!
Greg: “I question just how “passive” it is to let someone starve to death over the course of a couple weeks.”
Amitava: “Unless if you’ve done something to keep them in confinement against their will,”
Um, they’re in a vegatative state and will never gain consciousness. “against their will” becomes meaningless at this point.
Amitava: “I sincerely believe that laws must be based upon logic and reason in order to be just. Gut instinct can be a fine thing….”
I think if you keep implying that acknowledging the subjective is illogical and/or unreasonable, or that it is no different than an unthinking “gut instinct”, then we should probably just stop now.
“Again, I try and base my position on rationality”
Again, if you insist on this rhetorical approach, we can stop right now.
“the state doesn’t sanction smothering them with a pillow, or giving them a lethal injection.”
For someone who keeps talking about being “rational” and who keeps dismissing the subjective experience, your arguments have an interesting tendency to dive right down into the most emotive language possible.
for example “smother with a pillow” is patently ridiculous because no one is suggesting either passive or active euthenasia resort to that. But it has a great emotional tug to it, doesn’t it?
I don’t have a problem with you bringing in your own subjective experience. In fact I think we *must* acknowledge it to find any morality. Without the subjective experience, we are just machines, and there is no morality among machines. But you keep trying to dismiss any reference to the subjective experience as illogical and irrational, and yet, your arguments commonly cite extremely emotive language, i.e. they’re subjective.
The problem I’m having is you’re bringing in your subjective experience, but you seem to think you’re reporting something that qualifies as fact or logic or rationality.
So, we’re at a bit of an impasse.
Imagine if we were discussing a movie, and you started to say that the movie was “bad” as if it were some objectively measurable concept. If you don’t like the movie, that’s part of your subjective experience, something about YOU. It doesn’t say anything objective about the movie itself.
But then if you relate to the movie being “bad” as if it were “fact”, as if it were the “rational” and “logical” truth about the movie, that makes it impossible for you to be able to hear anything I say about me liking the movie.
I might try to couch my review in terms of “My experience of the movie was that I laughed and cried and was really pulled into the characters. I liked it”. But you don’t have any space for that view, because you’ve collapsed your subjective opinion about the movie into “fact”.
Again, I don’t have a problem you bringing your subjectiveness into the discussion. But you don’t seem to realize that it’s your subjective experience when you present it as if you’re being “logical” and “rational”, which also implies that I’m NOT being logical or rational.
Drachefly, I just noticed that when I look at the website on my droid, i get redirected to a sweepstakes site. And I’m no webguru, so I’m not sure what the problem is or how to fix it. Do you get redirected on a desktop and mobile or just mobile or just desktop?
Amitava, I don’t mean to help Greg overwhelm you, but I think you responded to the least interesting part of my post, and in a marginally relevant way. Yes, some animals we kill on a daily basis. Is it just _icky_ or is it actually _immoral_ to torture an animal? Say, giving chimps cigarette burns, flaying dolphins, waterboarding pigs?
I’d hazard that you’d say yes. If you don’t, substitute aliens.
If you agree, is it cognition that impels you to say so? If you don’t… I want to be as causally disconnected from you as possible, really.
When machines achieve consciousness, then we can revisit this assertion.
As for animals, I grew up on a farm and while the end result was steak and ham, we didn’t torture them to get to that point. Once in a while, we had to euthanize an animal because it was sick, injured, or born deformed. And I dont eat veal or foi gras because what they do to the animal to get it.
The point being that animals have consciousness so I try to have some respect for that consciousness.
There’s nothing inherently special about cells that happen to have 23 human chromosome pairs in them. In fact, saying that 23 chromosomes is what makes us special is its own form of logical bootstrapping. An unproven premise.
The reason WHY humans are different than inanimate matter is because of our subjective experience, our consciousness, and how many chromosomes we have is irrelevant. It’s that consciousness that gives us a right to live, to be free, and to be happy. The chromosomes are merely one specific implementation to achieve consciousness. If we ever discover intelligent life on another planet, we’ll see that 23 chromosomes has absolutely nothing to do with “rights” and that it comes down to consciousness.
Greg,
My abject apologies for delaying so long in my response; I’m currently in the process of transitioning between jobs and moving to a different state (and fixing to get my tonsils removed tomorrow; fun!), so if you’re still reading this, know that I should very much like to continue the conversation, should you be so inclined.
Greg you have been a more than gracious host. I appreciate your well wishes, and shall now endeavour to offer a considerably belated response to your last post, assuming anyone is still even following this.
I see how one might find my insistence on characterizing my thought process as being based on ‘rationality’ might come across as smug and offensive; might I offer “objectivity” instead as what I seek as a defining parameter? (And no, I’m not an Ayn Rand acolyte, believe it or not).
“For someone who keeps talking about being “rational” and who keeps dismissing the subjective experience, your arguments have an interesting tendency to dive right down into the most emotive language possible.”
Quite interesting indeed, considering that I try to right as dispassionately as possible. In any event what I was (am) trying to illustrate is the distinction between actively killing someone vs letting someone die. If you can think of an example of the former that’s less emotive and dramatic, by all means substitute it. Which actually brings up another interesting point, by which I make note of your reference to “active or passive euthanasia”. I’m not sure I even subscribe to the latter being possible.
I also find quite interesting the fact that your opposition to duty to rescue laws appears to be predicated on a utilitarian, versus deontological, perspective.
” Yes, some animals we kill on a daily basis. Is it just _icky_ or is it actually _immoral_ to torture an animal? Say, giving chimps cigarette burns, flaying dolphins, waterboarding pigs?”
Drachefly:
Morality is inherently a subjective thing (and at this point I’d like to point out that I don’t consider myself a moral relativist). The examples you give strike me as a bit capricious (that’s not intended condescendingly, btw), and in situations such as these I would think behaviour such as you describe would be indicative of a serious underlying defect in the perpetrators’ psychology. To use a more real-world example, how about the cultivation of fois gras? I suppose you might find it immoral, as many people do. But even though I don’t eat it (I’m actually vegetarian), I don’t feel I have the right to prevent others from doing so. Because any man-made laws that pass beyond the human realm are inherently arbitrary; therefore I find them as having less “truth value” if you will.
Anyway, sorry if my responses seem rambling, between the earache and the lortab my thoughts are probably wandering.
Amitava: “Quite interesting indeed, considering that I try to right as dispassionately as possible.”
We are not computers, Sebastian.
It is useful to try and find logical explanations for our sense of moral right and wrong. It is helpful to try and put them into mathematical terms so we can see whether they add up. For example, using math, we could see that simply fining a corporation a million dollars for something it did that saved it a hundred million dollars is pointless if we think the thing they did is wrong.
The point is that you can’t be totally “dispassionate”. You have to bring in the subjective experience of living. You have to bring in your own personal moral compass. And there’s nothing to tell you that your needle points in the right direction.
It’s clear to me that you’re bringing in your subjective experience around abortion and euthanasia. The thing is, it doesn’t seem clear to you. You’re invoking highly emotive language, and yet you say you’re trying to be “dispassionate”. I was pointing it out so that perhaps you might recognize some personal feelings you’re bringing into the conversation, some subjective opinions.
Until you can see that you’re bringing in your subjective reasoning, I’m not sure what value there is discussing the morality of abortion when you think you’re being entirely “dispassionate” and I’m reacting on little more than “gut instinct”.
My point is that we are both relating to this moral conundrum in part based on “gut instinct”. I try to acknowlege mine and try to come up with logical reasons that has the math line up with the moral compass. But you’ve not yet been willing to acknowledge that you’re bringing your own “gut instinct” to the party.
That is problematic.
Because, fundamentally, the reason we are at an impasse about abortion is because you’re not acknowledging that, for example, a single cell fertilized egg does not have consciousness, does not have the subjective experience.
It’s got the right number of chromosomes, and that mechanical definition is all that matters to you. You can’t seem to acknowledge that a single cell fertilized egg is in fact not conscious in any way, has no subjective experience of any kind, cannot experience pain or pleasure, has no wants or desires, has no fears, has no feelings at all. Meanwhile, you’re bringing in your subjective experience into the topic, but saying you’re trying to be as “dispassionate” as possible.
You can’t be entirely dispassionate. Because we’re not machines, Sebastian.
“also find quite interesting the fact that your opposition to duty to rescue laws appears to be predicated on a utilitarian, versus deontological, perspective.”
The idea of “duty” is a subjective response again.
To some extent, the notion of “duty” can be shown to fit within the rationality of mathematics. We as a people can decide to levy taxes and use them to pay for police, fire departments, road service, and so on. Some might simply say we have a “duty” to pay taxes, but I think the morality of it can be shown to fit within the bottom line of math and money: We get goods and services from the government that we should pay for. And this includes government services that others need that I benefit from them getting those services, even if I don’t get those services directly. I benefit from FDIC even if I never collect money from the government due to my bank crashing.
The nation, the economy, society as a whole, all benefit from children getting a good education. I benefit from everyone getting a good education. And even if I don’t have children, I benefit from everyone else’s child being educated, so it makes sense that I help support public education.
Not every regulation is a net gain. And at the same time, not every laisez faire approach is a net gain either. One needs to have a tally of the whole thing to tell whether it makes sense to regulate it or not.
With “duty to rescue” laws, well, the problem is in part that “duty” isn’t actually proven to exist. And the math and history show that random people off the street often get themselves into more trouble trying to help. And given that for the most part, trained EMTs and paramedics and such are just a phone call away, creating a “duty to rescue” law needlessly causes untrained people to endanger themselves, and isnt justified.
Amitava: “The examples you give strike me as a bit capricious”
Dude, have you ever been to an animal shelter? Seriously? There are some sick human beings out there who like to torture animals.
“fois gras? I suppose you might find it immoral, as many people do. But even though I don’t eat it (I’m actually vegetarian), I don’t feel I have the right to prevent others from doing so.”
Humans eat sannakji (octopus), ikizukuri (fish), “drunken” shrimp, and frogs, while the animals are still alive. You don’t think we could find a moral conundrum where even you would say, no, that’s too much? Eating a fish while it’s still flopping around?
We also regulate and outlaw the killing of animals that are near extinction. Don’t think you have a right to prevent that? In the 1950′s they estimate there were less than 500 mating pairs of bald eagles in the US. Should we let a few hunters wipe them out?
“Because any man-made laws that pass beyond the human realm are inherently arbitrary”
This has so many assumptions packed into it that I don’t even know where to begin. Even the laws you approve of? They’re have some arbitrariness to them. it is only through due process that they have a chance of eventually getting weeded out.
This is what drives me insane about libertarians: They think that every law and every regulation they support is somehow 100% grounded in moral, rational, logical, objective, dispassionate, reason, and any law that they DON”T support must be capricious, illogical, subjective, irrational, and little more than “gut instinct”.
What they’re doing is no different than anyone else is doing: they’re relying on their internal subjective moral compass and cross referencing that with reality, history, and logic to come up with what they think should be the law.
THe only difference is I can count on a libertarian to think their opinion is not arbitrary, but anyone who disagrees with them IS being arbitrary.
Libertarians most commonly have a certainty about them that is maddening, because that certainty turns their beliefs into dogma that never need be questioned.
I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that my morality is based on the subjective idea that there must be some sort of consciousness to be considered a person. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that this is completely arbitrary rule that I made up. And yet, I am willing to hold to that rule as one of the guiding principles of my moral compass.
Libertarians never think their rules are arbitrary. They never think that their rules are something that *they* use as a guiding principle for *their* moral compass. They never think its something THEY INVENTED. Rather they think they’ve latched onto some *external*, absolute, objective, truth about the universe.
And it gives them a kind of certainty that makes it damn near impossible for them to look at the FACT that their morality is in fact just as arbitrary as anyone else. It’s totally subjective for you to say that you have no right to tell someone else what to eat or not eat. It’s no more and no less arbitrary than if I say we ought to prevent people from eating bald eagles because they were endangered or that we should outlaw the practice of eating an animal while its alive because it needlessly inflicts pain.
It’s ARBITRARY in that you said it is moral. Which is no less arbitrary than if I said something else is moral. Ultimately, all morality comes from our internal moral compass. We can use logic and reason and math and history and sociology to try to make sure our arbitrary morality actually, you know, *works* in the long run. But your morality comes from the same place my morality comes from: inside.
Libertarians think they’ve latched onto some external source of morality. They’ll call it “freedom” or something like that. But its an arbitrary decision that they decided that their freedom is more important that the health and well being of society in general. ARBITRARY.
Just like my morality is arbitrary when I say that some level of consciousness needs to be present to be considered a person with rights. I’m perfectly willing to say that its arbitrary. But I’m also perfectly willing to STAND UP FOR MY MORALITY.
Libertarians will stand up for their view of morality, but they won’t acknowledge that its just as arbitrary as anyone else. They think they found some external measure or right and wrong. ANd it gives them a level of “certainty” that reminds me of dogmatic religious notions ideas of morality. When some external “God” tells us what right and wrong is, and the God is held to be infinite, all knowing, all powerful, and wise, then it sort of makes it hard to get someoen who believes that religion, it makes it hard to get that follower to consider that maybe his views on abortion, or same sex marriage, or capital punishment, might actually be… wrong.
You said “man-made laws that pass beyond the human realm are inherently arbitrary”
This assumes that YOUR laws, the laws that YOU support, are somehow NOT arbitrary. You follow the rule to “maximize freedom”? Yeah? That’s completely arbitrary. That’s YOUR rule. That isn’t anything you can get from an external source. Whatever rules YOU abide by are YOUR rules. Whatever direction your moral compass points is YOUR compass. It is YOUR morality. ANd it is just as arbitrary or not-arbitrary as MY morality, as MY moral compass.
If my moral compass is “gut instinct”, then fundamentally, SO IS YOURS.
But for you to keep portraying the source of your morality as logical, objective, rational, dispassionate, and the source of anyone else’s morality as arbitrary, subjective, “gut instinct”, directly points to the source of our current impasse.
Ah, so fast in your response, when I’ve delayed for weeks in making mine! Anyway…
“You’re invoking highly emotive language, and yet you say you’re trying to be “dispassionate”. ”
I should like to make one minor quibble if I may, if by emotive language you’re referring to the examples I gave of actively killing someone (shooting, lethal injection, etc). Really, can you think of any example that you would find less emotive or dramatic? I can’t do anything but ask you to take my word on this, but honestly I wasn’t trying to tug on your heart strings there, I was trying to illustrate what I see to be a sharp distinction.
You might be interested to know that abortion doesn’t really bother me a whole lot on an emotional level. I actually witnessed one being done during my third year of med school, and if there were any part of it that were to have made an impression it was the rather obviously stressed state of the patient during the procedure (as an aside, that’s yet another quibble I have with many pro-lifers when they make reference to people seeking abortion “casually”). Additionally I’ve seen suffering in places like India that likely outweighs whatever it was that the fetus went through. On the other hand, looking at an 11 week old fetus, with such obvious features as hands and a face, I feel compelled to state that this was the destruction of an individual human organism. And my viewpoint then, I guess, is that if this is something you (generic) want legalized, fine, but don’t tell me it’s something that it’s not.
I’m not entirely opposed to physician-assisted suicide, either (while admitting there’s considerable leeway in defining “physician-assisted”). Although I’m not sure I would consider the death of one such as Terry Schiavo as being “euthanasia”.
“The idea of “duty” is a subjective response again.”
This is something that cuts to the ethical/moral heart of the issue (more on that in a minute), to my mind. On all such things as you might describe (taxes, FDIC, etc) I would ask should individuals be compelled to take part in these because
a) they draw a benefit from them and therefore ought to contribute to them, or
b) because they have an innate responsibility to help their fellow man?
The first is something that I accept, the second I do not. Which is why I used the example of duty to rescue laws.
Where this is eventually going to lead probably is the idea of “voluntariness”, something we’ve discussed before methinks.
To touch on animal rights: when I said “capricious” I wasn’t referring to Drachefly’s use of those examples, I was referring to the behaviors he was describing. Which is not to question their occurrence, mind you. My point was that we as a society might have a legitimate concern because capricious cruelty to animals is something that is usually indicative of a greater underlying problem (it, along with pyromania and bed-wetting, is one of the sine qua non’s of what we consider sociopathy, for example). But leaving that aside and barring that in its’ own right? Well:
“Humans eat sannakji (octopus), ikizukuri (fish), “drunken” shrimp, and frogs, while the animals are still alive. You don’t think we could find a moral conundrum where even you would say, no, that’s too much? Eating a fish while it’s still flopping around?”
Honestly, no. (What frog dish is that, btw? I’ve heard of the others, crazy nips! (jk!))Because look, if we’re going to have a law it needs to be consistently applied. The argument for banning these things, I guess, is that it’s not necessary to eat an animal alive. But you know what? It’s not necessary to eat animals, period. I’m not trying to plug vegetarianism here, but culling meat from one’s diet is healthy, economical, and environmentally beneficial. As a net aggregate of animal suffering, I can assure you that animal husbandry in the western world inflicts far more stress and pain than the rather esoteric eating habits you describe.
“We also regulate and outlaw the killing of animals that are near extinction. Don’t think you have a right to prevent that?”
Yes. Environmentalism and animal rights are two completely (though not mutually exclusive) things. And I do support environmentalism, because I think it is in the interest of our race to protect the integrity of the biosphere we inhabit.
Libertarianism/arbitrary morality, writ large:
Boy do you pack one heckuva punch, my friend! I’m going to try and get to the meat and bone of the matter…
“This assumes that YOUR laws, the laws that YOU support, are somehow NOT arbitrary. You follow the rule to “maximize freedom”? Yeah? That’s completely arbitrary. That’s YOUR rule. ”
Believe it or not, this is something that I admit. As I mentioned before, any idea of morality is subjectively grounded (and again I’d like to state that I don’t consider myself a moral relativist).
From what I can discern, you appear to base your conception of morality on the question “what increases the net well-being of society (society being something that you take as a given)”?
I base mine on the idea that each person is an autonomous individual before they are part of a collective whole, and may not be compelled to help another person (I remember in one of our past debates on Mr. Scalzi’s blog, I forget what the topic was, I said rather dramatically “I’d rather a thousand die before a single man is forced against his will to help them”. Really “dispassionate” of me, of course Which ties into the ideas of non-aggression, “voluntaryism”, and (as you’d probably predict) the idea that a government’s responsibility should be relegated to the sphere of keeping people from hurting themselves.
That is my gut instinct, eh?
yes, it IS your ‘gut instinct’ at least if you wish to label everyone else’s moral compass as nothing more than “gut instinct”, then, so too is your moral compass “gut instict”.
The thing is your choice of words generally convey the impression that you have found some source of absolute right and everyone else is is just going with their gut instinct. No. Sorry. Your moral compass is sourced by your subjective experience. My moral compass is sourced by my subjective experience.
I have not yet gotten the impression that you hold your moral compass on the same level as mine. That you get we both have to come from our own personal subjective notions of right and wrong, and that we both could be wrong about right and wrong.
Fundamentally, this is why I think the state is so important. Most individuals think they are right or at least justified. But disputes between individuals means that at least half of those individuals are living by a moral compass that is more wrong than the other half. It is only through the State that individual morality can be aggregated and be put into a form of due process where we as a people find the right answer.
People arent perfect. The state cant be perfect because people arent perfect. But due process can create a system that as a whole is on the better half of justice.
I freely admit my moral compass is a subjective thing. You seem resistent to admitting it. I freely admit that the fact that I eat meat might be looked at in a couple hundred years the way we look at the fact that the founding Fathers, as good as they were, owned slaves.
You seem reluctant to admit that your views might be shown to morally flawed in the future.
I keep getting the impression that you believe you have found the “right” answer and everyone else is just going from gut instinct.
So every time we discuss some point, I am left with the impression that you’re not actually ever considering your own fallibility. I do. A lot. One of the reasons I am so familiar with the libertarian frame of mind is that I used to hold that point of view. But I started to see flaws in my point of view. I am abundantly clear that I have been wrong in the past and could be wrong right now.
In all these posts you’ve made I get the impression that you hold a certainty that you are right.
Morality is little more than looking inward and questioning what you think you are.
Amitava: ” The argument for banning these things, I guess, is that it’s not necessary to eat an animal alive”
No. That is YOUR moral compass. That is the justification YOU could find.
My reasoning is that there is no need for the animal to suffer in pain while we eat it. Having grown up on a farm raising steers and hogs, my experience was that our animals didnt experience a day to day existence of stress or pain.
That it is “not neccessay” to eat animals is YOUR moral compass pointing you in YOUR direction. It doesnt source my sense of morality AT ALL, because it is not MINE.
The question is whether you could ever recognize that “not neccessary” is in fact sourced by nothing but your subjective experience, and whether you might realize that means that this particular moral heading might actually be wrong.
“The thing is your choice of words generally convey the impression that you have found some source of absolute right and everyone else is is just going with their gut instinct.”
Huh. I’m sorry to have conveyed that impression, although I do confess myself a bit puzzled as to where or how precisely I might have done so. I will say again that I don’t know if I can accept the idea of there being an “absolute right” (while also saying again that I try not to think of myself as a moral relativist). To go back to the original issue, for example, I don’t believe I ever said that “objectively speaking abortion is murder” (although I did posit that a fetus may objectively be called a human organism, please to note I did not say “person”, which seems to be the crucial distinction amongst legal theorists). As a point of fact the very diversity of thought when it comes to ethics is one of the reasons why I support libertarianism.
“Amitava: ” The argument for banning these things, I guess, is that it’s not necessary to eat an animal alive”
No. That is YOUR moral compass. ”
Well, no. I don’t support banning ikizikuri or other such dishes, even though I wouldn’t eat them myself for a variety of reasons. Perhaps you might appreciate that I was trying to empathize and see the issue through the viewpoint of others who would (support such a ban, that is).
But then you so kindly provided your own viewpoint:
“My reasoning is that there is no need for the animal to suffer in pain while we eat it.”
To which I would respond, for the sake of argument, nor is it necessary to boil crabs and lobsters alive. Would you support a ban against that? (Such bans already exist in certain places). If necessity is benchmark, I might point out that it’s not necessary to wear acid-washed jeans, wear cosmetics, or even eat meat for that matter.
Incidentally, earlier today when I came to your blog I was re-directed to some sort of celebrity scandal-youtube type site, by the looks of it. Don’t know if it was the same sort of thing Drachefly was encountering.
Greg: “your choice of words generally convey the impression that you have found some source of absolute right and everyone else is is just going with their gut instinct”
Amitava: “I’m sorry to have conveyed that impression, although I do confess myself a bit puzzled as to where or how precisely I might have done so.”
Because you say you’re coming from the point of view that is “least arbitrary”, that everyone else is going by “gut instinct”.
Our moral compass is subjective. It comes from within, not without. Therefore it is ARBITRARY. Therefore it is, in fact, GUT INSTINCT. Yours and mine. Equally arbitrary and equally gut instinct.
That you think your moral compass is NOT doing that but everyone else’s moral compass IS, is what conveyed that impression.
“But then you so kindly provided your own viewpoint:”
Because that’s all there is to do when two people discuss morality, to present their viewpoints. We can’t go out into the world and find an objective definition of right and wrong. So we have to kindly provide our viewpoints.
nor is it necessary to boil crabs and lobsters alive
Notice: I didn’t center my reason on “necessary”. That was a word you introduced. I said the focus of what we allow and don’t allow should be centered on whether the animal goes through a lot of *suffering*.
“If necessity is benchmark”
Hello? Necessity?
“I was trying to empathize and see the issue through the viewpoint of others”
I am TELLING YOU my moral compass is guided by minimizing suffering of everyone, and you brought it back to your measure of whether it is “neccessary”.
If you want to empathize, forget about something being “neccessary” and look at whether the thing causes someone to suffer.
“boil crabs and lobsters alive. Would you support a ban against that?”
I swat flies and mosquitos because I don’t think they have much in the way of consciousness. They’re more organic machine than mind. Probably the same with lobsters.
I would say that the measure is to minimize suffering, not whether it is “neccessary”.
Which goes all the way back to teh question of abortion. A single cell does not have ANY consciousness. it can’t feel anything at all. From a subjective, experiential, consciousness point of view, it is no different than a single red blood cell. Neither can feel, think, or experience anything, let alone pain.
“I was re-directed to some sort of celebrity scandal-youtube type site,”
Were you on a mobile device? Or desktop? I see redirects when I look at the site with my phone. But so far have never seen it with my desktop.
I don’t even know what to do to fix it. I’m already at the latest version of wordpress. Maybe I could try reinstalling it.
Other than that, this stuff is way over my head. Might have to start over with a new website and new installation. Gods that’s a depressing thought.
“Because you say you’re coming from the point of view that is “least arbitrary””
I don’t think I said my POV was itself the “least arbitrary” (as you suggest, can a POV be anything but?), but rather that I base my opinion on “what is a person/abortion’s permissibility” on what seems to me to be the least arbitrary line.
I hope, btw, that you didn’t take my “kindly” to be intended snidely; I assure you it was not (eager as I always am to “know thine enemy” )
“They’re more organic machine than mind. Probably the same with lobsters.”
There’s actually some debate as to that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_crustaceans, to such an extent that places such as “Reggio Emilia, Italy” (according to wiki) have banned such cooking methods.
“Notice: I didn’t center my reason on “necessary”. That was a word you introduced. ”
You didn’t say “necessary”, it is true, but you did say:
“My reasoning is that there is no need for the animal to suffer in pain while we eat it”…”no need”, so perhaps you can forgive me if the crux of your thoughts on the matter lay on necessity?
Would I be correct in assuming, then, that you oppose animal testing? Or that all the meat you but is from certified free-range producers who ensure that their animals are killed humanely? Are there even such products? (That’s a genuine question, btw, I haven’t bought meat in quite some time).
So out of curiosity, where precisely DO your thoughts lie on abortion? Do you support any restrictions upon it? Should it be permissible so long as the fetus is within the woman? Til it’s viable? Has a heart, or a brain?
That redirect came when I was on my mom’s desktop, which was the first time I had used it to come here; it was also the only time it happened, so I wouldn’t advise you to reinstall anything on that count (while I’d also advise you not to take any advice from me, should it regard computers).
Would I be correct in assuming, then, that you oppose animal testing?
For cosmetics, yes. For medical research, not as much. The cost/gain factors into it for me. The cost being animals suffering. The gain being the chance of finding a cure for some human disease.
Animals suffering for makeup, doesn’t satisfy the cost/gain equation. if we could find a cure for cancer, it could be worth it.
Or that all the meat you but is from certified free-range producers who ensure that their animals are killed humanely?
I eat hamburger, steaks, ham, turkey, and chicken. I don’t eat fois gras or veal, as a counter example.
Are there even such products?
I don’t think there is anything legally enforced to the level of “free range”. I think there are certain requirements, but farmers have quite a bit of lattitude as do slaughterhouses. I seem to recall that the rules for kosher beef prescribes a particular process for killing the cow, and that process happens to result in a fairly fast and painless death.
our treatment of animals when I was growing up was not entirely free range, but it wasn’t a factory farm either. We had large buildings for the hogs which had space for them to run around in (hogs in a pasture would turn it to mud in a day or two, so no pasture). And the cattle were sometimes in feedlots/barns, and sometimes in pastures.
where precisely DO your thoughts lie on abortion?
I know that a single fertilized cell can’t feel pain and has no subjective consciousness, so I think there should be absolutely no legal restrictions on abortion at the very beginning.
I also get that having a baby is not 100% safe for women. Some of the dangers can be diagnosed for specific conditions with known outcomes (Ectopic pregnancy, for example). But even with no pre-diagnosed issues, pregnancy can be dangerous for the woman.
White women have a mortality rate of 9.5 per 100,000 pregnancies, according the the CDC. For African-American women, that rate is 32.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies.
Compare:
the mortality rate for Alzheimer’s disease was. 24.7 deaths per 100000
Strokes are 50 to 60 per 100,000.
having a baby is a risky endeavor. And I think this gives a woman a moral standing to have an abortion beyond the single cell.
Question for you: What if the pregnancy was the result of rape? Some pro-life people make an exception for cases of rape, but some do not.
“I eat hamburger, steaks, ham, turkey, and chicken. I don’t eat fois gras or veal, as a counter example.”
Might I suggest that you give “Eating Meat” a try (ha! no pun intended), by JS Foer? This might seriously give you pause in weighing how much animals should suffer that we might enjoy their flesh, at least if you’re opposed to such things as ikizikuri (I’ll say again I’m really not trying to sermonize; my vegetarianism has nothing to do with animal rights, but I did find the book quite provocative).
Allow me to ask you, specifically, about your opinion as to when abortion should or should not be permissible? Everyone draws a line somewhere, even if that line is “inside the woman”.
As to your question: the only circumstance in which I could countenance it being permissible were if the woman were impregnated against her will and the the pregnancy was known to carry a risk to her health.
As an aside, I think this debate will be substantially altered (hopefully resolved, but who knows) when artificial uteri are made practical, and “ending a pregnancy” need not involve “destroying the fetus”. But we’ll see.
Amitava: “Allow me to ask you, specifically, about your opinion as to when abortion should or should not be permissible?”
I thought I answered this question.
“Everyone draws a line somewhere”
Well, no. That’s another thing I find libertarians generally do: They have mechanical rules that draw hard-and-fast lines as to what should and should not be permissible.
I don’t draw a line. I draw some “should be OK here” lines and some “probably not ok here” lines, and there’s a whole chunk that I believe can only be answered by the people as a whole (as the state) as to what should and should not be allowed.
Single cell fertilized egg abortion should be allowed. No consciousness whatsoever, no moral conundrum for me. So, of all the abortion methods, the morning after pill should be the least controversial. The complete lack of consciousness can probably cover the first trimester or so.
After that, it’s not as black and white, but rather than say “it must be white or it should not be permissible”, I’m willing to weigh shades of grey. And the fact that pregnancy is dangerous to the mother means the mother has SOME right to have an abortion pretty much at any point.
If some hypothetical situation presented a choice between saving the life of the mother or saving the life of the fetus, then the mother gets to choose.
It is no different than your belief that we should not have “duty to rescue” laws. A woman should not be lawfully required to sacrifice her life for her unborn.
But even beyond the black&white hypothetical situation, pregnancy is a risk, just like rescuing someone in danger is a risk, and even if the odds are that you won’t get injured rescuing someone who fell through the ice, there is still some chance you’ll go through the ice yourself. Even if most women deliver without complications or without dying, the fact is women still die as a result of pregnancy, and I don’t think we can morally bind them to risk their life.
the mortality rate for pregnancy is roughly on par with strokes and alzheimers. I see no moral standing to require women risk their lives like that.
Now, just like when a random bystander sees someone who has fallen through the ice, bystanders often choose to try to do something to help that person. But its their choice to help. It is their choice to risk their own life to save another life.
Similarly, many women choose to take the risk to have children. But its their personal choice, not something that should be mandated by the state.
Just like I believe in the “right to die”. I believe it is something that must be decided by the person who is ill (through a living will) or their immediate next of kin.
It is a personal choice, not something that should be decided by the doctor, the state, or some random person off the street.
“the only circumstance in which I could countenance it being permissible were if the woman were impregnated against her will and the the pregnancy was known to carry a risk to her health.”
Well, first of all, there is always a risk to her health. Thing is, you’ll never take that risk, so it can be easier to require that others actually affected by the risk must take the risk.
Second of all, just to make sure I understood the implication of the boolean “and” in your sentence, if the woman was raped AND her health is at “risk” (for some definition of risk), then you would allow an abortion?
The boolean operator “and” means that BOTH must be true for the entire statement to be true.
So, if the woman was pregnant as a result of being raped but her health was not at “risk” (for some definition of risk), you would say she does not have moral standing to get an abortion.
Likewise, if the woman’s health was at “risk” (for some definition of risk), BUT she did not get pregnant as a result of being raped, you would also say she does not have moral standing to get an abortion.
Just want to make sure I parsed that correctly.
If she was raped AND her life is at risk, then you’d morally support an abortion.
If she was raped but her life is not at risk, you would morally oppose her getting an abortion.
If her life was at risk, but she hadn’t gotten pregnant as a result of rape, you would morally oppose her getting an abortion.
Figure I’ll get clarification before I say anything on that statement.
Amitava: “I think this debate will be substantially altered (hopefully resolved, but who knows) when artificial uteri are made practical,”
Out of curiosity, why do you think artificial uteri would resolve this?
The only reason I can see is that the fact that pregnancies currently take place inside the woman’s body means that the woman has a moral right to have say about her body. And yet, you don’t seem to acknowledge that a woman has any such right. The right of a single cell fertilized egg appears to override any rights of the mother.
So, if the mother has no rights, I don’t understand how moving the pregnancy to an artificial uteri changes the moral equation in any way.
As it is, we already have eggs being fertilized outside the body. Reproductive services do this all the time. And there is still disputes over what should and should not be allowed for reproductive services that happen outside the body. So, I don’t see resolution by getting pregnancies outside the woman’s body.
Not to mention, reproductive services are “practical” in that they’re commonly available, but they’re also hugely expensive, so not a lot of people use that approach. I’m not sure everyone is going to use an artificial uteri if it costs ten times more than natural childbirth costs.
“I thought I answered this question.”
Ah, pray forgive me, allow me to ask a more specific one: as you have asked me (in a way) when I believe abortion may be permissible, I should like to know if you believe there should be any restrictions placed upon it.
“That’s another thing I find libertarians generally do: They have mechanical rules that draw hard-and-fast lines as to what should and should not be permissible.
I don’t draw a line. I draw some “should be OK here” lines and some “probably not ok here” lines, and there’s a whole chunk that I believe can only be answered by the people as a whole (as the state) as to what should and should not be allowed.”
Ah, come now, it’s something that people do. A line’s still being drawn in that last, only you’re conferring the responsibility to the state. Which is what making laws is all about.
“Single cell fertilized egg abortion should be allowed.”
That’s pretty much the morning after pill, considering that a conceptus exists in a unicellular state for less than a day.
“If some hypothetical situation presented a choice between saving the life of the mother or saving the life of the fetus, then the mother gets to choose.
It is no different than your belief that we should not have “duty to rescue” laws.”
Well there is one key difference. Assume for the sake of argument that a fetus is a person (I know you don’t, but I do, and I’m trying to illustrate why my positions aren’t inconsistent with one another), then generally we as a society allow the rights of individuals to be curtailed when someone else falls under their care and responsibility (eg children in this case). In other words, I don’t have a right to evict someone from my property if I don’t want them there; that doesn’t allow me the right to toss my kids out into the streets cause I’m suddenly tired of them. Duty to rescue laws involve interactions between strangers, or random bystanders as you put it. I don’t think we should be legally obliged to look after the welfare of strangers. Our legal wards, on the other hand, are a different matter entirely.
“If she was raped AND her life is at risk, then you’d morally support an abortion.”
I’m not sure “morally support” is the way I’d put it, but to give you an answer to your question, yes, the criteria must be combinative. I realize there is some inconsistency in making this allowance (if a fetus is a person, then it’s still murder after all), but I can’t fathom any other way around it.
“Out of curiosity, why do you think artificial uteri would resolve this?”
Well, if a pregnancy could be terminated without destroying the fetus, then how could anybody object to abortion anymore? You understand that when I say “artificial uterus”, I mean that the fetus is removed from the woman and grown in vitro, in an external machine of some sort (the artificial uterus) to a state of viability? I’m not referring to the implanting artificial uteri in women, although that’s an intriguing concept in its own right. Of course, this would likely entail its own legal and ethical issues, but the point I’m making is that were such technology practicable I can’t imagine how there would be any further sizable opposition to abortion.
“As it is, we already have eggs being fertilized outside the body. ”
Fertilized, yes, but the conceptus must needs be planted in a surrogate (or the biological) mother for implantation.
“the woman has a moral right to have say about her body. And yet, you don’t seem to acknowledge that a woman has any such right.”
Of course a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, her tissue. The pro-life take is whether she has the right to decide what happens to someone else’s. Kind of “my right to swing my arm ends once it connects with someone else’s nose”. And a fetus may be within her body, it may be connected to her body, but it’s not a piece of her body, in the way that one of her organs or a pint of her blood are. So to go back to your original question; in this hypothetical future scenario, if a woman wants an abortion, fine! Her pregnancy may be terminated by the removal (but not the destruction, that’s the key element that an artificial uterus would solve) of the fetus and, I guess, “half” the placenta (there’s a biological Gordian knot if there ever was one, eh?)
Oh, one more thing, could you explain “boolean operator” in layman’s terms? I looked it up, and understood what you were asking, but it’s a completely alien term to me. I take it you learned this “computer speak” from building websites?
if A and B must be true, then the “and” is the boolean operator.
so if I understand correctly, if a woman got pregnant as a result of being raped, AND her life is not immediately threatened by the pregnancy, you grant her no moral grounds to get an abortion.
as for drawing more lines, I dont know enough of the issues to draw any more than I have. single cell fertilized eggs have no consciousness, awareness, feelings, etc so can be aborted without moral
conundrum. This can be extended from one cell to a point as long as consciousness is missing. Beyond that point, there is always the threat of complications to the mother that could endanger her life, so she should always have some say in whether she carries to term or not.
Duty to rescue laws do NOT limit themselves to strangers. If someone falls through the ice and their parent is there, the parent is not obligated to risk their life and go out on the ice.
most people dont know what they’re doing in situations like that and are nearly as likely to give the professional rescuers a second person they have to pull out of the water.
I think you are holding a subjective implication here about some sort of “duty” of mothers that isnt being explicitly stated. Like the “no duty to rescue” stops at pregnancy or mothers or something. for some reason, you are applying a different calculus to pregnancy.
as far as the artificial uteri thing goes, if you think a mother and father would have the embryo moved to an artificial uterus, to be raised by …. who? exactly??? if you think that would solve the problems around abortion, then I would say you dont fully appreciate the complexity of humans.
Amitava: “Of course a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, her tissue. The pro-life take is whether she has the right to decide what happens to someone else’s. Kind of “my right to swing my arm ends once it connects with someone else’s nose”. And a fetus may be within her body, it may be connected to her body, but it’s not a piece of her body”
The veracity of this premise is disputed.
I get its the premise used by pro-lifers, but that doesn’t mean its proven in anyway.
Usually, the argument from pro-lifers hinges on the idea that a single cell is a completely different person with full rights as any human based on the notion that “ensoulment” occurs at fertilization.
Just because you’re not using a religious argument doesn’t mean your premise is any less proven.
“so if I understand correctly, if a woman got pregnant as a result of being raped, AND her life is not immediately threatened by the pregnancy, you grant her no moral grounds to get an abortion.”
Correct.
“This can be extended from one cell to a point as long as consciousness is missing.” I’m glad you make that extension. I feel obliged to say, given your repeated reference to ‘one/single cells”, that abortion as it is commonly understood (a procedure performed in a clinic by a medical professional) never involves just a single-celled organism. In any event, the line that you seem to draw, if you’ll forgive my putting it so, is the possession of subjective consciousness?
“Beyond that point, there is always the threat of complications to the mother that could endanger her life, so she should always have some say in whether she carries to term or not.”
So then you don’t believe there ought to be any restrictions upon abortion?
“Duty to rescue laws do NOT limit themselves to strangers. If someone falls through the ice and their parent is there, the parent is not obligated to risk their life and go out on the ice.”
I think you may have a misunderstanding of duty to rescue laws such as they exist. By these, a bystander is not legally obligated to actually try to rescue the victim (eg perform CPR, pull from a burning car), especially if they might themselves be jeapordized by doing so. They are legally obligated, however, to do *something* to try and help; in Germany, for instance, this can be merely a call to emergency services. So to go to your example, no, the mother would not be legally obligated to go out onto the ice to rescue her child. But if it were known that she sat there and did absolutely nothing to help her child in distress, she could be held legally culpable. Not so if the victim were a stranger.
“as far as the artificial uteri thing goes, if you think a mother and father would have the embryo moved to an artificial uterus, to be raised by …. who? exactly??? if you think that would solve the problems around abortion, then I would say you dont fully appreciate the complexity of humans.”
Ah, please to note that I specifically said “Of course, this would likely entail its own legal and ethical issues,”, my point being that abortion itself, as a medical procedure alone, would likely be bereft of any further controversy.
“The veracity of this premise is disputed.” Yeah, no kidding. Which is why the abortion debate is fundamentally stalemated, and abortion arguments so often go nowhere. Unless “common ground” can be found on which to hold a discussion (which is why I so prize objectivity), then the premises upon which each sides’ arguments are predicated (it’s my body! you’re committing murder!) are rendered absolutely meaningless.
“Usually, the argument from pro-lifers hinges on the idea that a single cell is a completely different person with full rights as any human based on the notion that “ensoulment” occurs at fertilization.” Ugh. Ensoulment. Don’t get me started on these types. If I may indulge in a touch of hubris, MY rationale may not go any further in “proving” that a fetus is a person, but surely you’ll grant that it’s based upon a far more objective metric.
Greg: “so if I understand correctly, if a woman got pregnant as a result of being raped, AND her life is not immediately threatened by the pregnancy, you grant her no moral grounds to get an abortion.”
Amitava: “Correct.”
Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy from rape to term is going to be pretty damn hard to find any “common ground” with anyone but the most adamant pro-life stance. You may have an “objective measurement” (the correct number of chromosomes), but it shows complete disregard for the mother.
The thing is your measure is objective and completely arbitrary.
Woman gets raped and goes to a hospital a few hours or days later, and you would grant her no moral ground for taking the “morning after” pill? She has to carry the pregnancy to term, risk her life to do so, and then after delivery has the rest of her life to look into the face of a child that is the product of what is likely one of the most horrendous moments of her life?
This isn’t morality. This is dogma.
Amitava: “So then you don’t believe there ought to be any restrictions upon abortion?”
I think if a woman’s life is in danger and the only way to save her life is to sacrifice the baby, that no one has the moral authority to tell her she has to die so that her baby will live.
No one.
According to your boolean logic, if the mother was NOT raped, and her life is in danger, you would not grant her moral grounds to have an abortion.
This actually seems completely unobjective and completely arbitrary to me. Well, one could potentially argue that it is “objective”, but it is arbitrarily objective, with the arbitrary part being “even a single cell fertilized egg is more important than the life of a living breathing conscious human being that carries it”.
I think you somehow convinced yourself that being “objective” means your morality can’t be arbitrary. But as far as I can see, the value you place on a single cell outweighing the complete lack of value you place on the mother’s life, is completely and totally and absolutely arbitrary.
There is no objective basis for giving a single fertilized egg more value than a living breathing human being.
None.
It’s certainly objective. But its completely arbitrary.
They are legally obligated, however, to do *something* to try and help
I oppose any duty to rescue law that would require anyone to risk their life. Going out on the ice. Running into a burning building. Anything that would put the person’s life at risk would be a law I would oppose. Professionals, such as police, fire, paramedics, doctors, and so on, would have a duty to rescue.
The only reason I brought the duty-to-rescue laws up again was because I thought you were opposed to them. You now seem to be defending them. Do you oppose duty-to-rescue laws or do you support them and I misunderstood?
“in Germany, for instance, this can be merely a call to emergency services.”
THere’s no risk in making a phone call. There is risk in carrying a pregnancy to term. You seem to have made an effort to avoid acknowledging this fact.
“MY rationale may not go any further in “proving” that a fetus is a person, but surely you’ll grant that it’s based upon a far more objective metric.”
Chromosomes? That’s objective all right. It’s also arbitrary. It fails to identify what gives a conscious entity rights. Chromosomes don’t exist in AI, and at some point, a machine might achieve true consciousness, and deserve the same rights as humans. Or maybe someday we develop the technology to upload our consciousness into a machine, at which point, I hope we don’t lose our rights as humans simply because we improved our hardware. Intelligent life on other planets might not have anything biologically in common with us, but might be just as conscious and moral and deserving of rights as we are.
In every case, the thing that gives those non-humans who do not have chromosomes, the rights associated with humnas is their consciousness, their awareness, their subjective experience.
“chromosomes” is arbitrary, because it only works for one instance: humans. You will have to come up with a different measure for “personhood” for something like alien lifeforms, or conscious machinery, and such.
I assume that if we made contact with intelligent life on another planet, and they were completely different from us on a biological level, that you would still allow them moral rights, even if they had nothing resembling chromosomes.
“She has to carry the pregnancy to term, risk her life to do so, and then after delivery has the rest of her life to look into the face of a child that is the product of what is likely one of the most horrendous moments of her life?”
That’s where adoption comes in (an area that, imho, is in need of its own reform, as an aside).
“There is no objective basis for giving a single fertilized egg more value than a living breathing human being.”
Well, not more, strictly speaking, but equal. An important distinction.
“It’s certainly objective. But its completely arbitrary.”
Well, of course. As has been mentioned on more than one occasion in the course of this discussion, any standard of morality at the end of the day is arbitrarily based. Morality’s a subjective thing (as much as that statement makes me uneasy).
“Chromosomes? That’s objective all right. It’s also arbitrary.”
Well sure. That’s where I “draw my line”, if you will. You, if I understand correctly, draw your line at “so long as it’s inside the mother”. Which is fine, it’s consistent, I just happen to disagree with. Between you and I, the entire spectrum does fall, eh?
“It fails to identify what gives a conscious entity rights.”
You place a great deal of emphasis on consciousness. My problem with that is that there are situations where that’s very difficult to determine. Incidentally, what would you say to the supposition that a third-trimester fetus almost certainly can feel pain and respond to distress?
““chromosomes” is arbitrary, because it only works for one instance: humans.”
“I assume that if we made contact with intelligent life on another planet, and they were completely different from us on a biological level, that you would still allow them moral rights, even if they had nothing resembling chromosomes.”
Why go to another planet? Intelligent life exists alongside us right here on Earth. Perhaps you’ve heard of the “Great Ape Project”, which seeks to confer legal rights to (as its name suggests) Great Apes?
Ex-actly. Which is why I think it works so well as a metric in determining how we accord rights. It’s why, philosophically, I am opposed to the concept of animal rights.
“I oppose any duty to rescue law that would require anyone to risk their life. Going out on the ice. Running into a burning building. Anything that would put the person’s life at risk would be a law I would oppose. Professionals, such as police, fire, paramedics, doctors, and so on, would have a duty to rescue.
The only reason I brought the duty-to-rescue laws up again was because I thought you were opposed to them. You now seem to be defending them. Do you oppose duty-to-rescue laws or do you support them and I misunderstood?”
I am 100% opposed to them. I should make clear what exactly I’m referring to here, though. These are laws by which bystanders are legally obligated to do something to assist another person in distress, so long as their well-being is not jeapordized (like calling for help). Where such laws exist, that’s essentially the gist of it. Where they don’t, exceptions are made (ie, a duty to rescue is still taken for granted) for
a) those who work in particular fields, eg emergency services, and
b) those who are legally responsible for the person in distress (parents or guardians of a minor, caretakers of a disabled individual).
I oppose duty to rescue laws as described, with the aforementioned exceptions. If a someone sees another person drowning, for example, and does nothing to help them, I don’t believe we have the right to punish them for their inaction.
Eesh. That got all messed up. Please ignore the above post (my apologies for any confusion).
“She has to carry the pregnancy to term, risk her life to do so, and then after delivery has the rest of her life to look into the face of a child that is the product of what is likely one of the most horrendous moments of her life?”
That’s where adoption comes in (an area that, imho, is in need of its own reform, as an aside).
“There is no objective basis for giving a single fertilized egg more value than a living breathing human being.”
Well, not more, strictly speaking, but equal. An important distinction.
“It’s certainly objective. But its completely arbitrary.”
Well, of course. As has been mentioned on more than one occasion in the course of this discussion, any standard of morality at the end of the day is arbitrarily based. Morality’s a subjective thing (as much as that statement makes me uneasy).
“Chromosomes? That’s objective all right. It’s also arbitrary.”
Well sure. That’s where I “draw my line”, if you will. You, if I understand correctly, draw your line at “so long as it’s inside the mother”. Which is fine, it’s consistent, I just happen to disagree with. Between you and I, the entire spectrum does fall, eh?
“It fails to identify what gives a conscious entity rights.”
You place a great deal of emphasis on consciousness. My problem with that is that there are situations where that’s very difficult to determine. Incidentally, what would you say to the supposition that a third-trimester fetus almost certainly can feel pain and respond to distress?
““chromosomes” is arbitrary, because it only works for one instance: humans.”
Ex-actly. Which is why I think it works so well as a metric in determining how we accord rights. It’s why, philosophically, I am opposed to the concept of animal rights.
“I assume that if we made contact with intelligent life on another planet, and they were completely different from us on a biological level, that you would still allow them moral rights, even if they had nothing resembling chromosomes.”
Why go to another planet? Intelligent life exists alongside us right here on Earth. Perhaps you’ve heard of the “Great Ape Project”, which seeks to confer legal rights to (as its name suggests) Great Apes?
“The only reason I brought the duty-to-rescue laws up again was because I thought you were opposed to them. You now seem to be defending them. Do you oppose duty-to-rescue laws or do you support them and I misunderstood?”
I am 100% opposed to them. I should make clear what exactly I’m referring to here, though. These are laws by which bystanders are legally obligated to do something to assist another person in distress, so long as their well-being is not jeapordized (like calling for help). Where such laws exist, that’s essentially the gist of it. Where they don’t, exceptions are made (ie, a duty to rescue is still taken for granted) for
a) those who work in particular fields, eg emergency services, and
b) those who are legally responsible for the person in distress (parents or guardians of a minor, caretakers of a disabled individual).
I oppose duty to rescue laws as described, with the aforementioned exceptions. If a someone sees another person drowning, for example, and does nothing to help them, I don’t believe we have the right to punish them for their inaction.
A woman who gets pregnant as a result of rape should be legally forced to carry the pregnancy to term, and her only relief from looking in the eyes of the child that would remind her ever day of her rape… is to give the child up for adoption???
I don’t think any morality this brutal is morality.
You’re studying to be a doctor? I hope not a gynocologist.
“Why go to another planet?”
No, no, no… lets take that hypothetical trip. Spaceships arrive on earth driven by intelligent life from another planet. They are of a biology completely unlike humans. They have no chromosomes. No DNA. They might not even have anything that we would recognize as “cells”.
But they demonstrate through their behaviour that they are intelligent, have emotions, feelings, wants, needs, and desires.
Do grant them any moral grounds for having rights?
By what objective measure do you grant them a moral basis for rights?
“I oppose duty to rescue laws as described, with the aforementioned exceptions”
Firefighters are not legally or morally obligated to go to their deaths to rescue people. They are trained to know when its safe, when there is a reasonable risk, and when there is too much risk.
Parents are not legally required in any other circumstance that I know of to risk their lives for their children except for pregnancy. You hate duty to rescue laws, but you’re making extremely severe exceptions for mothers, to the point of demanding they risk their lives.
Back to your boolean operator, your statement was that a woman had to be pregnant as a result of rape AND she had to have her life in medical danger as a result of the pregnancy before you would grant her the moral grounds for an abortion. That would mean if she got pregnant by her husband willingly and then the pregnancy became dangerous for her life, you would not grant her moral grounds for an abortion.
THIS is where you value a single cell fertilized egg as having more value than the mother.
You hide it behind an arbitrary exception to your no “duty to rescue” laws beliefs, that mothers are required to risk their lives for their unborn. But strip that away, and simply compare who has priority in your equation, and it is clear that the mother is no where near as important as the unborn, even a single cell fertilized egg.
Even if the odds are 99% that the mother will die, if she got pregnant voluntarily, you grant her no moral grounds for an abortion.
Clearly, you put far more value on the potential life of the unborn than on the real life of the mother. I know everyone likes to believe they’re consistent and fair, but this is not holding life at equal value. The mother’s life becomes almost meaningless compared to the unborn even a single cell.
Why you require rape AND a threat to the mother’s life, before allowing moral grounds for an abortion, I have no idea.
Rape by itself is not enough to compel you to grant moral grounds for an abortion.
a woman’s life being in severe and immediate danger by the pregnancy is not enough to compel you to grant moral grounds for an abortion.
But together, the two circumstances are enough to compel you to grant moral grounds for an abortion.
This combination, as far as I can see, is completely arbitrary as well. Especially, given that there is nothing in the explanations as to why you oppose abortion for either individual case, there is nothing that would suggest that when put together, you would allow an abortion.
There is no guiding rule to the individual cases that one could apply to the combined case and figure out that you would allow abortion there. Based on your opposition to abortion, based on the reasons you give as to why you would not grant it for every other condition, I would never have guessed that rape AND mother’s life in danger would be a combination that would cause you to allow an abortion.
Before I say anything, I ought to tell you Greg that this well may be my last missive for a while, as starting Tuesday I’ll be out of the country for a little while. If you write back today I might be can respond; any later, and you’ll be waiting at least a couple weeks, just so you know. Anyhoo…
“I don’t think any morality this brutal is morality.”
An unfortunate circumstance, I don’t dispute, but if one believes abortion involves the killing of a person, you can see which is the less brutal of the options.
“You’re studying to be a doctor? I hope not a gynocologist.”
Family med.
“But they demonstrate through their behaviour that they are intelligent, have emotions, feelings, wants, needs, and desires.”
In this they would be no different from apes or pigs.
“Do grant them any moral grounds for having rights?
By what objective measure do you grant them a moral basis for rights?”
I believe rights should be granted based upon capacity to assume responsibility for one’s actions, as to my mind a right can only exist concomitantly with responsibility to assume that right. So to the extent that any life form is able to assume that responsibility and take part in human society is the metric by which I believe rights should be accorded. This, incidentally, is why I’m somewhat torn when it comes to things like the Great Ape Project. It’s quite clear that bonobos, for example, are capable of “conversing” with humans.
“Firefighters are not legally or morally obligated to go to their deaths to rescue people. They are trained to know when its safe, when there is a reasonable risk, and when there is too much risk.”
Are you sure about that first part? I’m not a firefighter, but I’d think every time they go into a burning building they’d be risking their life. But in any event, the point is duty to rescue laws don’t obligate one to risk their lives, or in any way jeapordize themselves, to help someone in distress. They just obligate them to do something (eg, call an ambulance).
“That would mean if she got pregnant by her husband willingly and then the pregnancy became dangerous for her life, you would not grant her moral grounds for an abortion.
THIS is where you value a single cell fertilized egg as having more value than the mother.”
I hate to nitpick, but I don’t see how that would be possible. By the point a woman is even aware she’s pregnant, the fetus has developed far beyond the single cell phase.
“You hide it behind an arbitrary exception to your no “duty to rescue” laws beliefs, that mothers are required to risk their lives for their unborn.”
Leaving aside the argument of what constitute a parent’s duty to their child, this would be applicable of we were discussing “allowing the fetus to die”. But abortion is a procedure whereby the fetus is actively killed. If one rejects a parent’s duty to rescue, then certainly the mother is under no obligation to do anything to save her child. At the same time, that doesn’t give her the right to kill it. So theoretically, if an abortion could be achieved passively (say, by hormonally-inducing ischemia to the placenta or something like that) then I could see how it might be permissible (assuming again that parental duty to a child is obviated).
“Even if the odds are 99% that the mother will die, if she got pregnant voluntarily, you grant her no moral grounds for an abortion.”
Right. Because ultimately one has the choice whether or not to have sex (except of course in rape, ergo the aforementioned exception).
“Clearly, you put far more value on the potential life of the unborn than on the real life of the mother.”
Perhaps you mean to say potential person? Because let’s be clear, biologically speaking a conceptus is a living organism, there’s nothing potential about it. And no, working on the assumption that a fetus is a person, I don’t place more value on its life, I place an equal value. Even if the woman has a 99% chance of dying, if you perform an abortion the child has a 100% chance.
“Based on your opposition to abortion, based on the reasons you give as to why you would not grant it for every other condition, I would never have guessed that rape AND mother’s life in danger would be a combination that would cause you to allow an abortion.”
See above about choosing to have sex. And I’ll say again, it’s a position that makes me uncomfortable due to its inconsistency. Still, I can’t fathom any other way around it for the life of me.
Your only allowance for abortion is if the mother is pregnant as a result of rape and her life is in danger from that rape-conceived pregnancy.
No other allowances given.
You feel uncomfortable granting a moral right to an abortion under this circumstance (mother raped and life in danger) but you will grant it.
If the mother gets pregnant from rape but her life is not in danger, you say she is morally obligated to have the baby. If she can’t bear to look at a reminder of being raped every day, you will allow her to give the child up for adoption. But she must deliver the baby.
If the mother is pregnant by choice, and complications arise such that her life is endangered, you say she is morally obligated to have the baby. Even if there is a 99% chance that she will die delivering the baby, you say she is morally obligated to risk her life to deliver the baby.
You’re saying these moral obligations begin at conception. The moment a fertilized egg attaches itself to the woman, the moment the woman becomes pregnant, she is obligated to carry that pregnancy to completion.
On to the next topic: you are opposed to the concept of animal rights.
You see no moral conundrum if someone wants to eat an animal, any animal, while it is still alive. Regardless of how much pain that might inflict for however long it would inflict it.
You would be suspicious of any attempt to regulate or legislate the amount of pain humans can inflict on an animal because such attempts are almost always based on sentiment rather than reason, and inconsistently applied.
Your a vegetarian, but not because of anything that happens to animals from eating meat.
You haven’t explicitly said so, but it would appear that given the choice between a law that protected the rights of some animals but did so in some inconsistent manner, and a choice of no law at all which would then at least be “consistent”, you would rather choose no law and be “consistent”.
“The moment a fertilized egg attaches itself to the woman, the moment the woman becomes pregnant, she is obligated to carry that pregnancy to completion.”
Rather the moment the egg is fertilized, as that’s the dividing line between “parental tissues” (sperm & egg) and “human organism”. Incidentally, you make mention of implantation; I actually have less objection to contragestive measures like IUDs, which by preventing implantation don’t kill the conceptus but “allow it to die”; I believe one has a duty not to kill, but that does not equate to a duty to save. The only reason I say “less objection” rather than “no objection” is because of the “parental duty to offspring” issue, as discussed earlier. As you might expect I have no objection to contraception.
“You see no moral conundrum if someone wants to eat an animal, any animal, while it is still alive. Regardless of how much pain that might inflict for however long it would inflict it.”
May I ask wherein precisely would the conundrum lie? I do believe it to be inconsistent to ban things like ikizukuri while allowing for modern factory farming methods. But I must take issue with “any animal”.
I am not an animal rights activist, but I do consider myself to be an environmentalist. I believe endangered species ought to be afforded legal protection (and consistently so, too. People who oppose protecting “minor” species like snail darters or the Delhi sand fly by saying “it’s just a fly/minnow/whatever” either don’t understand biology or don’t really care about endangered species).
Everything else you’re pretty much spot on. As you’ve indicated, I strongly believe that any moral code must be consistently formulated and applied if it’s to have any weight and meaning. There’s nothing I hate more than hypocrisy and double standards.
Amitava: “Rather the moment the egg is fertilized,”
OK, slight tweak. So, a fertilized egg should not be killed but can be allowed to die. But again, for the mother, once its implanted itself, and removing it would cause it to die, the mother has no moral right to abort.
“May I ask wherein precisely would the conundrum lie?”
If you go to an animal shelter in a big enough city, over a long enough period of time, you will find animals that were kept alive by the owner for no other reason than so the owner could torture the animal, over a period of years. I have a problem with that.
We raised cattle and hogs on the farm when I was growing up, but we generally tried to make sure they were taken care of, not in pain, healthy, fed, watered, etc. If they were sick and couldn’t recover, we euthanized them to put them out of suffering. yes, they were eventually sent to slaughter, but the point of that was to kill them quickly, not to torture them.
“There’s nothing I hate more than hypocrisy and double standards.”
History seems to show that philosophy, morality, the law, and the state are an incremental process. I think anyone who thinks they can ever reach a point that is “perfect” is kidding themselves. There are likely aspects of how you and I live today that will be viewed as backward thinking brutes a century or two from now. And a century from now, people will live in ways that two centuries from now people will look back and mock. and so on.
My goal is not to be perfect. My goal is not to stamp out all hypocricy. My goal is not to stamp out all double standards. My goal is to make the world a little more civilized than it was the day before. And sometimes that means we do things that make the world a little better, even if it creates hypocrisy. The US Constitution was a vast improvement over anything before it. And it allowed for Slavery. I would have pushed for the Constitution as it was, warts and all, rather than have allowed the Americas to turn into another monarchy, which would have been far worse.
I have a problem with people torturing animals for no other reason than to inflict pain. Even if you think that doesn’t perfectly jive with the fact that I eat meat, I would rather make the world a little better for one part of it, and create a double standard that the rest of the world has to catch up with, rather than to leave the world far more immoral but unhypocritical.
History shows that morality is an incrimental process. If there is such a thing as “good”, and we get there a little bit at a time, that means any particular step is going to create some hypocrisies and some double standards.
Ever the utilitarian, eh? As you might imagine I prefer the deontoligical perspective myself.
“I have a problem with people torturing animals for no other reason than to inflict pain.”
Well ikizukuri, as I understand it, isn’t done for the purpose of inflicting pain on the fish, it’s done to eat meat that’s maximally “fresh” as possible. A sensuous indulgence, to be sure, but then, it could be argued, is eating meat.
Anyway, I should love to respond at greater length, but I’m going to be taking my leave in about seven hours. Feel free to write back, and I’ll be happy to respond towards the end of the month. Or if you’re not so inclined, well then, this has been a most invigorating and enjoyable monthlong (!!!) conversation. Be seeing you at Whatever, I’m sure!
Ha! My dear Mr. Greg, in the event that you may read this, please don’t take “utilitarianism” as an accusation, but rather an observation (in your ethics, that is, as opposed to deontological, an alternative which, considering how “rule/line-bound” we libertarians seem to be, you many find unsurprising).
I believe the term is “ethical pragmatist”. I’m not sure I’m one of those either. But obedience to a rule is definitely not my definition of morality.
I am a bit confused by your invocation of animal pain in your attempts to disprove my line of thinking but not your own. Your latest one is this:
“A sensuous indulgence, to be sure, but then, it could be argued, is eating meat.”
You’re not a vegetarian because of any concern for animals. And yet this is a round about swipe against eating meat based on animal pain. At the very least, you’re attempting to disprove by implying hypocrisy is occurring to worry about animals being tortured while eating meat of any kind.
It’s not actually hypocrisy. It’s based on a rule that is consistently applied based on grades of pain and suffering, but you keep trying to make it all or nothing.
like this:
“I do believe it to be inconsistent to ban things like ikizukuri while allowing for modern factory farming methods.”
This disregards and ignores levels of pain and suffering and bins it into all or nothing. It would be the difference between me stepping on your foot and hitting you with a bus at speed. I assume any repercussions for my actions would take the actual damage, and the actual pain, I inflict into account.
“I believe rights should be granted based upon capacity to assume responsibility for one’s actions, as to my mind a right can only exist concomitantly with responsibility to assume that right. So to the extent that any life form is able to assume that responsibility and take part in human society is the metric by which I believe rights should be accorded.”
How does a single cell assume any responsibility for its actions?
I’m not really up on the exact label that fits your belief system here, but “speciesism” seems to keep coming up. A quick perusal of wikipedia seems to agree with that. It mentions the great ape project, so maybe you’re already familiar with the term.
You give rights to humans because they’re human, because they have the right number of genomes, and the right kind of DNA. And because nothing else has human genomes or human DNA, you don’t give anything else any rights at all.
A single cell gets complete protection because it has human DNA, but you would allow animals to be tortured for a lifetime because they don’t have the right DNA.
The experience of pain of the living creature doesn’t matter to you. The complete *lack* of subjective experience doesn’t matter to you. The fact that a fertilized egg is an unconscious drop of tissue doesn’t matter to you.
It comes down to DNA. It comes down to being the right species.
Well I do declare, Greg, you responded! I had thought after so long an absence on my part I had probably written to nothing more than the nebulous netherworld of the internet, but a suivre, as it would seem! I’ll write at length shortly (no pun(???) intended)
Interesting test there, I scored a low normal (ironically enough, I answered that seeing animals suffer does bother me). Some of those questions are a touch curious, though. Making checklists of things I need to do? I’d be interested to hear the psychological backdrop to that. And just out of curiosity, do you know why “Baron Cohen” is in the address? Not anything to do with Sacha, I suppose?
“At the very least, you’re attempting to disprove by implying hypocrisy is occurring to worry about animals being tortured while eating meat of any kind.”
I’m not sure I followed that completely.
“This disregards and ignores levels of pain and suffering and bins it into all or nothing. It would be the difference between me stepping on your foot and hitting you with a bus at speed. ”
I think I see what you’re driving towards. Allow me, if I may, to make something absolutely clear. I sincerely and genuinely believe that the average chicken or pig that provisions your meat in the grocery store via a modern abbatoir suffers no less (I repeat, no less) than the fish which has the misfortune of finding itself being eaten alive by a group of Japanese gourmands. A different kind of suffering, perhaps, but all told if I had to choose between a half-hour of vivisection and spending my life immobilized, being randomly mutilated, fed my own waste etc., well. At best it would be a coin toss. If there’s a gradation to the suffering at hand here, it’s a very subtle one indeed.
“How does a single cell assume any responsibility for its actions?”
It can’t, any more than an infant or someone who’s been brain-damaged can. This is why humans that are unable to assume any responsibility for themselves (minors, developmentally disabled, etc) are granted considerably limited rights. They’re not afforded legal autonomy, but among the rights they do have is the right not to be killed. I extend the same right to a fetus, since the only difference I see between a fetus and a newborn is whether it’s inside or outside the mother. (Incidentally, if you’ll forgive my saying so, but your repeated emphasis on the single-celled nature of a conceptus is largely irrelevant if we’re discussing abortion as it’s commonly understood. Granted it certainly falls within *my* view of the matter, but abortion as a medical procedure never involves a single-celled conceptus).
“I’m not really up on the exact label that fits your belief system here, but “speciesism” seems to keep coming up.”
Yep, I’d say that fits the bill pretty well.
“And because nothing else has human genomes or human DNA, you don’t give anything else any rights at all.”
Well, no. I support protecting endangered species, for example. But some sort of standard has to be used if we’re going to grant rights to non-humans. And I’d rather it be consistent and non-sentimental (why is it illegal to slaughter horses, but not cows? Because horses are “cute”?) So if the standard is not going to be “it’s human”, then what? Intelligence? Unless I’m much mistaken, you’re willing to countenance animal suffering based on its necessity. It’s a viewpoint I can actually respect, it’s just that I just see industrial animal husbandry and things like ikizukuri as being comparable.
Amitava: ” I sincerely and genuinely believe that the average chicken or pig that provisions your meat in the grocery store via a modern abbatoir suffers no less (I repeat, no less) than the fish which has the misfortune of finding itself being eaten alive by a group of Japanese gourmands. A different kind of suffering, perhaps”
manslaughter is a different kind of crime than murder, too. But you’ve glommed them together into one thing. Maybe you think they *should* be treated as one kind of crime, but most people think the subjective differences matter. Most people think *intent* matters, even if the outcome is objectively the same (i.e. a person is dead.)
You’re glomming suffering together into one thing and ignoring *all* subjective measures that would differentiate something like free-range, pasture-raised, beef versus setting a cat on fire just to see it burn.
Yes, both suffer at the hands of humans, but the level of suffering is different, and more importantly, the *intent* is different. We raised cattle and did what we could to minimize any suffering we inflicted. I’m talking from personal experience here. You can cite factory farms and you can try to glom all farms into whatever worst case you want, but it’s a hasty generalization and it doesn’t fly. If you want to make a convincing argument, or more specifically, if you have any desire to convince *me* of a different view, you can’t pick the worst fo the worst and say it applies to all.
We kept suffering to a minimimum. And that meant we didn’t raise veal, we didn’t raise foi gras, we didn’t raise any kind of livestock that required suffering just to improve some oddball flavor. We didn’t eat the cow while it was alive because it had some better flavor.
But you’re glomming the entire spectrum of gray into black/white. And it does not convince.
“I just see industrial animal husbandry and things like ikizukuri as being comparable.”
This makes it extremely hard for me not to dismiss you out of hand. You’re taking the worst of the worst of factory farming and saying its all that bad. It’s not true. And having grown up on a farm where we made a point to minimize suffering, it’s insulting.
“I support protecting endangered species, for example.”
You support protecting endangered species because of the potential damage their extinction might cause to *mankind*. You don’t *care* about those species intrinsically. You care about them for entirely selfish reasons.
This is libertarianism in a nutshell, as far as I can see. There is no sense of “other” unless it comes with some kind of selfish payoff. Libertarians will often argue that they adopt a sense of “universal human rights” because if they don’t extend those rights to others, then they can’t expect those same rights *from* others to *themselves*.
There is no intrinsic worth within anyone else, or anything else, or some alien “other”, unless it answers something positive to the question “what’s in it for me?”
Every conversation I have with a libertarian that dives deep enough boils down to this. Everything is quid pro quo. There is no sense of “inalienable rights”, its always of a form “I want people to treat me a certain way, so I’ll treat them a certain way”. It’s the Golden Rule turned on its head. A running tally is kept to make sure that the rights extended to others is just up to the edge of the rights the individual libertarian wants extended to himself.
And it is NOT the same thing.
“(why is it illegal to slaughter horses, but not cows? Because horses are “cute”?)”
Why is this so bloody hard for you to get? The answer is entirely straightforward. The reason we have different laws for horses and cows is because we don’t need to eat horses. Horses are generally kept for nonutilitarian purposes. They’re more like really big pets that people have because they enjoy them. And we have different laws for livestock that we eat than we do for pets.
I get that you prioritize consistency over all else.
But the problem with that is if eating animals is morally “dark gray”, then it would be better to outlaw some cruel animal treatment, than it would be to allow some animals to be slaughtered (because we eat them), and make it illegal to slaughter other animals (because we don’t eat them).
If you prioritize consistency over everything else, if you’d rather the laws allow the slaughter of any and all animals for any reason at any time using any method, and if there is any immorality whatsoever to killing an animal, if there is some “dark gray” to the act of killing an animal, then what you’re saying is you’d rather allow pure evil than to have inconsistent laws.
Pouring gasoline on a cat and setting it on fire is evil. Killing an animal as quickly and painlessly as possible so that you can eat it, has some moral quandaries, but it isn’t as evil as slowly burning a cat alive for no purpose other than entertainment.
But because the laws allow some animals to be treated one way and other animals to be treated other ways, you’d rather the law be consistent and allow completely immoral behavior than to have it be inconsistent and outlaw some immoral behavior.
You’ve prioritized consistency over morality. It is more important to you that the laws satisfy logic than to satisfy justice.
“manslaughter is a different kind of crime than murder, too. But you’ve glommed them together into one thing. Maybe you think they *should* be treated as one kind of crime, but most people think the subjective differences matter.”
That’s just the thing, though, intent is the differentiating factor between the two. It’s not a subjective difference (even if the process whereby intent is determined, ie trial by jury, is subjective.)
“You’re taking the worst of the worst of factory farming and saying its all that bad. It’s not true. And having grown up on a farm where we made a point to minimize suffering, it’s insulting.”
I do apologize if I’ve offended you, but if you read what I wrote here, I have very carefully relegated my remarks to “food that you buy in the grocery store” (in fact, I believe the genesis of this originated when I asked where you buy meat). If I may say so without sounding patronizing, your family running an independent farm is something to be commended for a number of reasons which I needn’t enumerate. I daresay, however, that the vast majority of meat that Americans buy doesn’t come from the likes of Greg Inc., it comes from the likes of ArcherDanielsMidland. Now, one assumption that I have made regards the sort of place where you do your grocery shopping. You well may make a point of only purchasing grass-fed, free-range, cage-free, etc., in which case I don’t cite any inconsistency at all in your beliefs. For the majority of Americans who don’t, however, yet get squeamish about watching animals die, let alone suffer…another story.
“You support protecting endangered species because of the potential damage their extinction might cause to *mankind*. You don’t *care* about those species intrinsically. You care about them for entirely selfish reasons.”
“You support protecting endangered species because of the potential damage their extinction might cause to *mankind*. You don’t *care* about those species intrinsically. You care about them for entirely selfish reasons.
This is libertarianism in a nutshell, as far as I can see. ”
Ehh, speciesism (sp??), I’d say. I’m concerned for the common good (which does affect me, of course), but I’m not looking at it from an individualist perspective, I’m looking at it from the interests of human beings. I mean, look. I’m single, I don’t have kids. If I were truly selfish, I could just say “what happens over the next several generations won’t affect me, why should I care?” (Was that too nitpicky?)
““I want people to treat me a certain way, so I’ll treat them a certain way”. It’s the Golden Rule turned on its head.” Actually that looks to me like the Golden Rule itself. Not to go all Objectivist here, but it seems to me selfishness ultimately underlies most of what people as a whole do. It’s a logically deducible idea, and moreover I have to say it’s something I see often enough in my own life.
“The reason we have different laws for horses and cows is because we don’t need to eat horses. ”
We don’t need to eat cows, either.
“Horses are generally kept for nonutilitarian purposes. They’re more like really big pets that people have because they enjoy them.”
You can speak for yourself there. But you can’t speak for, say, some Uzbek immigrant who decides to buy a some foals specifically in order to raise them to eat. And I don’t see how you, I, or anybody else can take it upon ourselves to tell him otherwise.
“And we have different laws for livestock that we eat than we do for pets.”
Ah-ha! If laws applied to “livestock” vs “pets”, then I’d have less objection. A pig can be a pet. Likewise, horses can be livestock (right? I’m not a farmer). But basing such laws on the which species you, I, or whatever the lawmaker happens to favor is something that I see as (surprise!) inconsistent and will never support.
“Pouring gasoline on a cat and setting it on fire is evil.”
Again, as uncomfortable as moral relativism makes me, words like “evil” are inherently subjective. You know what else is considered evil? Wearing fur. Gay sex. Charging interest on loans. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Setting a cat on fire is cruel. So is squirting acid into rabbits’ eyes. What’s the difference? Whim vs necessity? (Now, as an aside, I can accept that random acts of animal cruelty warrant the attention of the state, insofar as they are usually indicative of a more serious (and dangerous) underlying problem).
“but it isn’t as evil as slowly burning a cat alive for no purpose other than entertainment.”
Sure, but to the extent that I understand it, ikizukuri isn’t done for the purpose of torturing the fish. The suffering the fish undergoes is largely incidental (I think).
“You’ve prioritized consistency over morality. It is more important to you that the laws satisfy logic than to satisfy justice.”
I don’t believe true justice can be illogical. True ethics cannot be inconsistent. That, by way of example, is one of the reasons why I have such a problem with the Nuremberg Trials. Not because Nazis were punished, but because the Soviets sat amongst their judges.
“I don’t believe true justice can be illogical. True ethics cannot be inconsistent.”
No True Scotsman.
No. Really. You need to understand that’s all you did there. Nothing more than a logical fallacy.
“it seems to me selfishness ultimately underlies most of what people as a whole do”
And if everyone jumped off a bridge, would that make it right?
You do realize that you keep saying “consistency” is your priority. And yet, there is no consistency in a moral system that says “if everyone’s doing it, then why not do it?” That’s not logical, its argument ad populum.
No. Really. It’s a logical fallacy. That’s all it is.
Greg: “The reason we have different laws for horses and cows is because we don’t need to eat horses. ”
Amitava: “We don’t need to eat cows, either.”
But we do. That’s the basis for the differences in the law. You keep acting as if it is unfathomable that we treat different animal species differently from a legal perspective, but, hey, guess what, we treat animals differently from a non-legal perspective too.
We eat beef. We don’t eat horses. The laws are different for those two species.
You keep insisting that it is illogical and inconsistent to have one set of laws for cattle and a different set of laws for horses. But we eat cattle and we don’t eat horses, so the laws are different.
“You can speak for yourself there. But you can’t speak for, say, some Uzbek immigrant who decides to buy a some foals specifically in order to raise them to eat. And I don’t see how you, I, or anybody else can take it upon ourselves to tell him otherwise.”
Oh, this is getting into nonsense now.
You have your version of morality and I have mine. And we both have pieces of our morality that we think is worthy of being taken on at the government level. For you, it might be that your morality about “logical consistency” is more important that the ethical treatment of some species of animals. That’s you.
If you advocate for that at the government level, you’re taking it upon yourself to tell people like me otherwise.
This is another thing about Libertarians that is maddening. Religious people would disown their morality from themselves by assigning it to God. God said this is right and that is wrong. They do this to dissassociate themselves from their moral compass. It is the old fashioned version of “lurkers support me in email”, except its “God told me I am absolutly right”.
Libertarians do something similar, except rather than invoking “God”, they think they’ve found some “logical” reductionism to morality that exports their moral compass to some external laws of physics. It’s “lurkers support me in email”, but in this case it often sounds something like “your morality is arbitrary, my morality is based on irrefutable logic”
You would not be the first libertarian who would wonder aloud how I could force my view of morality on anyone else, and yet you advocate for your morality with no less stridency than me.
I get that when I dig down enough through my morality, I eventually reach my moral compass. My moral compass. Not God’s moral compass handed to me from atop the mountain. And not “Logic’s” moral compass handed down to me from some Philosopher-King/Philosopher-Tyrant. I know that I have no one to export my moral beliefs to. I can’t say god or the devil or Plato and his cave made me do it. When I advocate for some moral belief, it is ultimately sourced by me.
Thing is, that’s the case with everyone. You’re morality ultimately comes from nowhere other than your own internal moral compass.
And so when we get together to form a state, everyone is trying to impose their form of right and wrong on everyone else. I get that when I say I support a woman’s right to an abortion, and that it should be protected in the law, I get I ultimately have no higher authority to fall back on other than “that’s what I think”. And yet “That’s what I think” is ultimately the final authority behind your morality too.
The problem isn’t that I am somehow different in taking it upon myself to tell anti-abortion people otherwise. It’s they’re telling me otherwise, and I’m telling them otherwise, and neither one of us has any higher moral authority to point to than our own internal personal moral compasses. At which point we’d better figure out a way to form a state based on nothing but individuals with their individual moral compasses and try to find some common ground.
Your moral compass has no higher authority than mine does. We are equals, and together we are part of a state. If you ask “who are you to impose your compass on anyone else?” then you don’t understand how individuals with their individual moral compasses form a state.
“That, by way of example, is one of the reasons why I have such a problem with the Nuremberg Trials. Not because Nazis were punished, but because the Soviets sat amongst their judges.”
OK. Fine. Here’s a simple, totally non-rhetorical question for you:
Would the world have been BETTER OFF if there had be NO NUREMBERG TRIALS or was the world BETTER OFF having imperfect Nuremberg Trials?
If you have a choice between (1) taking some Nazi’s to trial for war crimes and other war criminals getting away or (2) letting ALL war criminals go unpunished, which would be better for the world?
(1) gives you Perfect Logical Consistency and complete injustice. (2) gives you inconsistency and at least some justice.
And you prioritize logical consistency over justice.
“Again, as uncomfortable as moral relativism makes me, words like “evil” are inherently subjective. You know what else is considered evil?”
This is what I’m talking about. You dismiss what I consider evil, because you think the needle of your moral compass is controlled by some external thing other than you, logic or some such thing. No. It’s YOU.
Your morality is what you consider to be moral. And that’s no different than MY morality is what I consider to be moral.
“The line has to be drawn somewhere.”
Yes it does. And where I draw it is based on my internal compass and where you draw it is based on your internal compass. I consider burning a cat alive to be evil.
You consider laws that are not perfectly logical to be evil.
“Setting a cat on fire is cruel.”
In YOUR CONSIDERATION.
See. This is that thing I was talking about where you think your morality is different and better than mine. I get my morality comes from my moral compass. I have no one else but myself to cite when I say “Pouring gasoline on a cat and setting it on fire is evil”.
But you, you dismiss it because it is only my opinion, and it is some arbitrary line drawn in the sand and you know what else other people ahve considered immoral, you ask? “Gay sex”, you reply. As if showing thta someone else’s messed up morality somehow shows that my morality is flawed, but that your’s isn’t.
“The line has to be drawn somewhere.”
Yes. And where you draw the line is fundamentally no better sourced than where I draw my line. We both draw it where we both think it is best drawn.
You think I’m being arbitrary and you think you’re not arbitrary.
The difference is I get that on a fundamental level, we’re BOTH being arbitrary in that we’re BOTH left no recourse but ot refer to where our individual internal moral compasses point.
Pouring gasoline on a cat and setting it on fire is evil. Yes. I drew a line. Damn right I did.
Your line is somewhere else. Rather than stradle the issues between pain and suffering and find a fracture or fault line along which to draw your moral line, you chose a different spot. You drew your line of right and wrong where the tectonic plates of perfect-logic and inconsistent-reality meet. Thta’s were you drew your line of morality and justice. And it’s fundamentally just as arbitrary as my line.
Just because some bigotted assholes drew their line of right and wrong between straight-sex and gay-sex doesn’t mean that my line is wrong but your line is right. And it doesn’t mean because they “considered” gay sex wrong and I “consider” animal cruelty wrong that I’m just as arbitrary as some homophobe.
You, and I, and that homophobe are all “arbitrary” in that we have nothing but our internal compass to go by. But you’ll notice that you don’t hold all three of us as having the same moral standing. The homophobe “considered” gay sex bad and he was wrong. Some people “considered” wearing fur to be bad and they were wrong. Some people “considered” charging interest to be bad and they were wrong. I “consider” animal cruelty to be bad and I am wrong.
But you don’t hold your morality as if you “consider” it the same way you think I “consider” my morality. You think my morality is arbitrary. you think your morality is based on external, perfect, logic, and therefore is intrinsicaly better.
You don’t hold your morality as your morality. You hold it as if it were sourced by something external from you, i.e. you think it is sourced by some kind of external, absolute, Logic, and everyone else is basing their morality off of their internal, and flawed, thinking.
“No True Scotsman.
No. Really. You need to understand that’s all you did there. Nothing more than a logical fallacy.”
Mm, yes I see that. Take away the “true” then. I think I like it even better that way. Justice cannot be illogical, then it is not justice. Ethics cannot be inconsistent, then they’re not ethical at all.
“We eat beef. We don’t eat horses.”
Who’s this “we” you’re speaking of? *You* eat beef but not horse. I eat neither. And someone else might eat horse but not beef. Which goes back the example I gave.
“And we both have pieces of our morality that we think is worthy of being taken on at the government level.” I don’t think either is worthy of being taken to the govt. level. That’s the whole point. I wouldn’t make impositions on *anybody’s* culinary habits using the law. If I own a cow and a horse, and have raised them in the same set of circumstances, will you please explain to me why I should be permitted to shoot one in the head but not the other?
“Libertarians do something similar, except rather than invoking “God”, they think they’ve found some “logical” reductionism to morality that exports their moral compass to some external laws of physics. It’s “lurkers support me in email”, but in this case it often sounds something like “your morality is arbitrary, my morality is based on irrefutable logic”
You would not be the first libertarian who would wonder aloud how I could force my view of morality on anyone else, and yet you advocate for your morality with no less stridency than me.”
I don’t think my morality is the most “logical”. I think it’s the most permissive. I’m not forcing you to accept my morality, I’m just demanding that you not force yours upon anybody else’s. And if that means that a given person should not be obliged to help their fellow man, then that’s their right (which is why I brought up duty to rescue laws way back when).
“Thing is, that’s the case with everyone. You’re morality ultimately comes from nowhere other than your own internal moral compass.”
On this point we are in 100% agreement.
“And so when we get together to form a state, everyone is trying to impose their form of right and wrong on everyone else.”
Yup. That’s why I’m so strongly drawn towards the whole idea of non-aggression and voluntariness. The presumption that any given person *is* part of a state, regardless of whether they want to be or not, is something to which I am very strongly opposed.
“At which point we’d better figure out a way to form a state based on nothing but individuals with their individual moral compasses and try to find some common ground.”
Common ground. There you’ve hit the nail on the head. Which is why I believe the state’s power is best relegated to that which we can agree upon (as you’ve described before, the libertarian view that “govt. should prevent people from hurting each other”.)
“Would the world have been BETTER OFF if there had be NO NUREMBERG TRIALS or was the world BETTER OFF having imperfect Nuremberg Trials?” Ooh, I am so sorely tempted to make an “if by whiskey” response. I’m not sure exactly of how the circumstances you seem to suggest would have come about. I’ll say this, I think that we should have tried the Nazis who were in the power of the western Allies on our own, and let the Soviets do with theirs as they would (yes, even if by some bizarre chance that had meant they’d go free. I imagine the more likely outcome would have been them getting summarily shot. Which is its own injustice, I guess. But still one I’d be willing to accept).
” You dismiss what I consider evil, because you think the needle of your moral compass is controlled by some external thing other than you, logic or some such thing. No. It’s YOU.”
I don’t dismiss what you consider evil. But I think it’s best when the government only restricts that which we *all* consider proscribable (going back to the whole idea of “common ground”).
“Yes. And where you draw the line is fundamentally no better sourced than where I draw my line. We both draw it where we both think it is best drawn.
You think I’m being arbitrary and you think you’re not arbitrary…You drew your line of right and wrong where the tectonic plates of perfect-logic and inconsistent-reality meet…You think my morality is arbitrary. you think your morality is based on external, perfect, logic, and therefore is intrinsicaly better.
You don’t hold your morality as your morality. You hold it as if it were sourced by something external from you, i.e. you think it is sourced by some kind of external, absolute, Logic, and everyone else is basing their morality off of their internal, and flawed, thinking. ”
Wrong. I don’t draw the line where *I* think it’s best. That’s my point; I’d rather let people draw their own, so long as it was done in a fashion that didn’t harm anybody else. You know I’m a libertarian, but that’s all you know about me. In terms of my personal beliefs, I can be extremely conservative. And if I were God-Emperor of Amitavastan, and my own whims enacted into law, I imagine things might look like a technologically permissive Anabaptist society (my more liberal friends tell me I’d fit in perfectly in Saudi Arabia. Well, um…) I may personally disapprove of things like drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography, etc. I may consider them to be immoral. But so long as the practitioners of these things aren’t harming me or any other non-consenting person, how can I dictate to them what they might and mightn’t do, even if I’m observing something that really upsets me? I don’t see how I can, no matter how much I may want to, and still maintain (get ready for it) consistency of thought. That’s the whole point.
Greg: “We eat beef. We don’t eat horses.”
Amitava: “Who’s this “we” you’re speaking of?”
The same “we” who passed the laws saying *we*
treat cattle one way and horses another way.
Amitava: “I wouldn’t make impositions on *anybody’s* culinary habits using the law.”
But you’re saying *we* have no moral standing to
regulate this or that. That’s *you* imposing *your*
moral views on everyone else.
” I’m just demanding that you not force yours upon anybody else’s.”
Exactly. You’re demanding. That’s nothing more than you looking at your personal moral compass and imposing it on everyone else.
When I say “women ought to be able to have some rights to abortion”, I am clear that is me looking at my internal, personal, individual moral compass and saying that’s the direction that *we* as a state should go.
You are doing exactly the same thing. You’re looking at your compass and saying thats the way we as a state should treat individuals.
The only difference between you and I in this regard is that your compass points in a different direction than mine.
“The presumption that any given person *is* part of a state, regardless of whether they want to be or not, is something to which I am very strongly opposed.”
And guess what? That’s also part of your compass.
” I don’t draw the line where *I* think it’s best. That’s my point; I’d rather let people draw their own, so long as it was done in a fashion that didn’t harm anybody else.”
God damn it, man. That is exactly the same thing as drawing a line.
You know that part where I said religious people “export” their moral compass to God and Libertarians “export” their moral compass to “logic”. That’s exactly what you did there.
YOU DREW A LINE that said “people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else”. That is YOUR LINE. YOU DREW IT.
But like EVERY Libertarian I’ve ever run into, you think this is somehow different. You don’t think this is some aspect of your personal moral compass. You think this is some external absolute moral truth.
I don’t draw the line where *I* think it’s best.
Yes, you do. Completely and totally, this is all sourced by you.
“Which is why I believe the state’s power is best relegated to that which we can agree upon”
This is nonsense. No bank robber is ever going to agree upon outlawing the robbing of banks. You can’t have unanimous agreement, because evil men will never agree to be regulated.
Let me say that again because this is exactly where Libertarian Philosophy falls flat on its face:
EVERY EVIL PERSON WILL OPPOSE REGULATION THAT RESTRICTS THEIR EVIL ACTS.
Therefore anyone who draws a line that demands that the State must have Unanimous agreement, is designing anarchy with a thin veneer of “morality” on top.
And every Libertarian knows their demand for unanimous agreement fails immediately, so they try to plug the leak by saying “Physical violence can be outlawed”.
Yeah?
Really?
It’s an arbitrarily drawn line, no different than anyone else’s moral compass.
But Libertarians convince themselves that they’ve uncovered some external, absolute, “truth”, and can’t see that its just happens to be exactly in line with the direction their internal moral compass just happens to be pointing. It’s how you can say something like:
” I don’t draw the line where *I* think it’s best.”
and think you’re speaking honestly. Well, if you didn’t draw the line at “so long as it harms none”, then who did? It certainly didn’t draw itself.
“The same “we” who passed the laws saying *we*
treat cattle one way and horses another way.”
Ah, good old cultural paternalism, eh? Not too dissimilar from the mindset that mandates school prayer, 10 commandments in courthouses, english-only movements and all that? (Sorry, I’m just being ornery). Look, I acknowledge that that’s the “cultural rationale” that underlies this particular issue. So let me put it to you this way. Say I’m a registered voter (which is the case) or, for that matter, a legislator (which is not). Were I given the opportunity to legalize, or vote in favor of legalizing horse slaughter (provided it’s done in a humane manner so that that particular contention may be quelled), can you explain to me why I should not? Why should I support this double standard in the status quo?
“Exactly. You’re demanding. That’s nothing more than you looking at your personal moral compass and imposing it on everyone else.”
True, but there’s this: I’m not obliging anyone else to actually do something, I’m obliging them to *refrain* from doing something. Maybe you don’t see this as being any different, but for me it’s a crucial distinction.
““The presumption that any given person *is* part of a state, regardless of whether they want to be or not, is something to which I am very strongly opposed.”
And guess what? That’s also part of your compass.”
Yup. A very important component of it too, I’d say.
“This is nonsense. No bank robber is ever going to agree upon outlawing the robbing of banks. You can’t have unanimous agreement, because evil men will never agree to be regulated.”
I’m not so sure of this. If you’ll allow me the use of your analogy: in my experience most people, if (which can be an iffy if, admittedly) they recognize that some given act of theirs is deemed censurable by society, don’t object to its being outlawed. More often it’s rather a mindset of “if I can get away with it, I’ll do my best to do so”.
“But Libertarians convince themselves that they’ve uncovered some external, absolute, “truth”, and can’t see that its just happens to be exactly in line with the direction their internal moral compass just happens to be pointing.”
I can’t speak for libertarians at large (at least not the ones with whom you’ve dealt, aside from yours truly), but I will say unambiguously that this is not the case with me. I don’t believe I know “truth”, and I don’t believe my beliefs are ultimately founded upon logic (I’m not sure that’s even possible; it’s like saying “my beliefs are founded upon goodness”. Logic’s a means, not an end.)
So if you please, hearken unto me well, mon adversaire de taille. *I fully acknowledge that my viewpoints are dependent upon opinion, belief, and a subjective “moral compass” if you will*. I don’t believe that compass is defined by an absolute truth. But if I could express it succinctly, I guess it would go something like this: “I believe liberty is more important than physical well-being (not that I see the two as being inherently at odds, mind you), I believe negative rights should always supersede positive rights (to the extent that I even acknowledge them), and I will never accept aggression as being morally justified.” I believe this is good, I believe this is right, I believe it is just. (On some earlier discussion at Mr. Scalzi’s blog, I had said something along the lines of “I’d rather a thousand die before a single man is forced against his will to help them”. I was being a touch polemical, I’ll admit). I cannot say that the truth value to this statement exceeds any opposing statement you might make. If other libertarians do, well, so be it. But I do not.
“” I don’t draw the line where *I* think it’s best.”
and think you’re speaking honestly. Well, if you didn’t draw the line at “so long as it harms none”, then who did? It certainly didn’t draw itself.”
I’m certainly speaking sincerely. On that you cannot defy me (pardon the overweening hubris of my tone. Blech). Aside from the line “harm none”, I draw no lines. That’s the point. My belief system is not the most “truthful” or “logical”, but it is so far as I can see the most permissive. Which goes back in turn to my moral compass as I described it.
Good lord. *We* are part of a democratic state. The vast majority (96%) of voters in this democratic state eat beef. Horses are rarely eaten in the US. One of my guiding principles would be “minimize harm”. And unlike you, I extend that principle to animals. If *we*, as in the US, are going to eat cattle but not horses, then I would rather minimize harm to horses and treat them better than cattle. It seems that at least for now, enough Americans are willing to go along with the idea of treating horses better than cattle.
You, on the other hand, while espousing this “harm none” principle, you only apply it to humans and have zero regard for how animals are treated or mistreated. Your hypocricy meter somehow doesn’t get triggered by allowing harm to animals, so perhaps you should be a little more clear and reword it to say “harm no human, do whatever you want to nonhumans”. At least that way, people you are talking with don’t read more compassion into your “harm none” statement than is actually there.
But your moral compass is piqued by and takes issue with the fact that we do not allow horses to be treated like cattle. Pain isn’t the magnetic force that turns your compass needle. Logical Indifference is. It would be better, apparently, if people could be allowed to set any animal on fire and eat them as they cook alive than to draw some “arbitrary” line that says, no, that’s too much pain to inflict.
Your moral compass also seems perturbed by the idea that the state treats cattle different than horses. But the vast majority of americans eat beef, while eating horses is extremely rare. And the laws reflect that.
At which point, you shout “Hypocricy!”
The funny thing is, you don’t care about cattle or horses. Yet you can’t abide people eating one and protecting the other. It’d be like me not caring if you get up on the right or left side of your bed, but calling you a hypocrite if you always get up on the left side.
The problem is, you think you’re “logic” is the only “logical” way to look at things and everything else is “hypocricy”. And that is hubris.
Aside from the line “harm none”, I draw no lines.
“harm none” is not a line. It’s a principle. Someone could take “harm none” as a principle and draw the line on the abortion debate so as to allow abortion. Principles are not lines. A line is when you take some specific instance and say yes or no. So, you’re drawing lines every time you weigh in on some specific issue. Abortion. Taxes. Animal welfare. Adoption. Gay marriage. Whatever. Each time you weigh in for or against soemthing, you’re drawing a line.
This again is where you really do think your belief system is an absolute truth and absolute logic. Because you cannot seem to fathom that someone else could take your exact same principles and come to compeltely different conclusions. You think the only lines you’re drawing is “harm none” and “most permissive”. Those are actually prinicples, not lines. And you think your principles must logically lead to draw lines on specific issues exactly where you drew them.
I’m a big fan of “harm none”. But if someone were to pull a gun on me, I would cause harm in self defense. So, already, the principle of “harm none” isn’t a pure absolute for all instances like you think it is. If someone were to try to kill you, I would guess that you would be willing to inflict some harm in order to protect yourself. If so, then your principle isn’t actually “harm none”, but rather “minimize harm”. I’ve run into very few people who are true pacifists.
I’m a huge fan of the government being as permissive as possible. I support outlawing physical violence and physical theft because allowing it would be equivalent to anarchy. I support the idea of pre-emptive regulation that is specifically designed to prevent harm, such as requiring food be served with a certain level of safe handling. Without it, people would be harmed, and responding only after people are harmed when that harm is entirely preventable and workable is part of what I weigh when I decide to draw a line somewhere.
And I also support outlawing more complex behaviors that aren’t simple tit-for-tat scorekeeping. The prisoner’s dillemma describes more complex situations where individuals acting in their own self interest produce the worst possible outcome. Libertarians don’t even believe such a thing exists. They can’t even acknowledge the truth of the mathematics because it completely conflicts with their worldview.
And to bring it back to abortion, the idea of “minimize harm” has to decide whether a single cell fertilized egg is capable of being “harmed”. You say yes. I say no. As the pregnancy goes along, the ability to “harm” becomes something to be weighed against any harm to the mother. You decided that a single cell can be “harmed” and you decided that any harm to the mother is irrelevant. That’s where you drew several lines based on your principles of “minimize harm” and “be permissive”.
The thing that Libertarians can never seem to wrap their heads around is that their principles aren’t unique to their particular political view. I’d call myself a progressive and I hold to the principles of “Minimize harm” and “be permissive” and end up drawing lines in completely different places than you.
So, your principles aren’t “lines”. The lines you draw are how you take your principles and apply them to specific real world questions like abortion or animal welfare or any other specific occurrence.
Greg, you’ll have to pardon my absence over this past week, I’m in the midst of preparing for a new job.
“Good lord. *We* are part of a democratic state. The vast majority (96%) of voters in this democratic state eat beef. Horses are rarely eaten in the US. One of my guiding principles would be “minimize harm”. And unlike you, I extend that principle to animals.”
Eesh. The moment I wrote that, I was afraid that was the part you’d respond to.
So your rationale is “minimize harm”, and you would extend that to animals. Well and good. May I ask, then, in a completely non-caustic fashion, why you yourself don’t become vegetarian? In doing so you’d be doing something to minimize harm to animals even further.
“But the vast majority of americans eat beef, while eating horses is extremely rare. And the laws reflect that.” Ah, but I consider myself an individual before I consider myself part of the collective. If you support this legal discrepancy as a means of minimizing animal harm, then fine, I applaud you. Most Americans don’t seem to, however. They do so out of some idea that “horses mean more to us than cows, they’re a part of our heritage, blah blah blah”. Hey, speak for yourself buddy. *That* is enshrining cultural patrimony into law. Which actually brings me to a most interesting thing that I have learned. Imagine my surprise when, perusing this issue as is occasionally my wont, I find that as of last November, lo and behold, horse slaughter is once again legal here in the US! http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/obama-legalizes-horse-slaughter-for-human/
Which somewhat changes the dynamics of the question which I had intended to once more put before you.
To wit: Why should I support any measure that would singularly outlaw horse slaughter, provided it is done in a humane manner? If you don’t like the idea of eating horse meat, then here’s a tip: don’t eat it or buy it. But can you give me one good reason why I should do anything to prevent someone else from doing so?
“The problem is, you think you’re “logic” is the only “logical” way to look at things and everything else is “hypocricy”.”
No. Again, “logic” is not my rubric, even if I try to make use of it in my beliefs: consistency is, as you’ve so aptly pointed out.
“A line is when you take some specific instance and say yes or no. So, you’re drawing lines every time you weigh in on some specific issue. Abortion. Taxes. Animal welfare. Adoption. Gay marriage.”
Exactly. You’ve illustrated my standpoint better than I could have myself, I daresay. The one “line/rule/law/whatever” that I believe inviolable is “do no harm/commit no aggression (against people, you nitpicker you!)”. The result being that save for abortion, obviously, in none of those issues which you enumerated would I restrict peoples’ behavior. *I wouldn’t make a law to begin with*.
“But if someone were to pull a gun on me, I would cause harm in self defense.” True, but that wouldn’t constitute aggression. And truth put to it, the pragmatist in me acknowledges that the best we can strive for is “minimize harm” rather than “absolutely prevent” it. As you might expect, I very strongly admire the schools of thought that emphasize absolute non-violence (eg Gandhi, Tolstoy) and view them as being the most consistently moral.
“I support the idea of pre-emptive regulation that is specifically designed to prevent harm, such as requiring food be served with a certain level of safe handling.” I would have less problem with this if it were done in such a way that made greater use of voluntariness and consent. In most aspects, however, I’d agree.
You’ve brought up things like the prisoner’s dilemma and tragedy of the commons on more than one occasion now. But could you please provide me with a real world example by which no active harm is done to a non-consenting adult, but you still believe the govt./authority may legitimately proscribe?
“And to bring it back to abortion, the idea of “minimize harm” has to decide whether a single cell fertilized egg is capable of being “harmed”. You say yes. I say no. ”
Firstly, I know I’m quibbling here, but will you please stop referring to *single celled* conceptuses (concepti?), if only because it’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand?
“Harm” is admittedly a subjective word. Just look at the debates regarding secondhand smoke, prostitution, spanking/corporal punishment and this is obvious. So instead of saying I believe the fetus has the right not to be harmed, how about I believe it has the right not to be killed? Its destruction, I think, is beyond dispute.
Amitava: “why you yourself don’t become vegetarian? In doing so you’d be doing something to minimize harm to animals even further.”
Because I get no one’s perfect, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else. My goal isn’t perfection, or perfect logical consistency, because it’s impossible. And if you think you’re living life in a perfectly logical consistent manner, then my guess is you’re not looking closely enough.
I am satisfied with making the world a little better than when I came in. That is something I think I can actually deliver on. But perfect? No.
“They do so out of some idea that “horses mean more to us than cows, they’re a part of our heritage, blah blah blah”. Hey, speak for yourself buddy.”
I don’t understand why this bothers you other than you think they’re being irrational while you’re being perfectly rational. Which is ridiculous. If you’re a living, breathing, thinking, human being, you’ve got a big swath of irrational in you that is driving your decisions. We all do.
Why bother getting out of bed in the morning? It’s irrational. It’s more work than its worth. The energy we spend is always more than the energy we get back. The only reason we do is because we want to, because we are driven to live, which is a couple hundred thousand years (minimum) of evolutionary programming. The drive to procreate is irrational. The drive to live is irrational. Doesn’t make it bad. Doesn’t make it wrong.
Just because someone likes horses for some irrational reason doesn’t make them any more irrational than any other human who was driven to get themselves out of bed that morning.
“Why should I support any measure that would singularly outlaw horse slaughter, provided it is done in a humane manner?”
Clearly, you have no reason to. You’re a vegetarian, but for purely selfish reasons, not because of what it does to animals. I eat meat, but I care about animal welfare. Neither one of us wins any prizes in logical living.
But for me, I’d rather “minimize harm” be applied to animals to at least some extent.
You seem to immediately want to take it to its absolute end of zero harm to animals, but I never said that. I said minimize harm, not *minimal* harm. Reduce the harm from where it was when I got here. And maybe reduce it a little more from where it is now.
I’m talking about a relative shift, not some absolute measurement. Because we’ll never have an absolute.
“But can you give me one good reason why I should do anything to prevent someone else from doing so?”
For you? No. For me? I’d support it because it would minimize harm.
““I support the idea of pre-emptive regulation that is specifically designed to prevent harm, such as requiring food be served with a certain level of safe handling.” I would have less problem with this if it were done in such a way that made greater use of voluntariness and consent.”
You can’t have food safety be voluntary and still have it be preemptive. If its voluntary, then the number of people who follow it would plummet, and the number of people who get sick would skyrocket.
The thing is that most Libertarians think they can solve the Prisoner’s Dillemma by saying its an Iterated prisoner’s dillemma. i.e. If the seller tries to screw us, we should respond with a boycott. if they harm us, we should harm them by never doing business with them again.
But is severely naive. a lot of our transactions are with people we will never see again in our lives. Get in a cab and the guy takes the scenic route, but you’ll never see him again, so a boycott is pointless. People buy a car once every few years. People buy a house even more rarely. And some transactions are such that by the time failure occurs, a boycott is pointless, such as banks playing risky risk with savings accounts. By the time the crash comes, the damage is far greater than anything a boycott could inflict.
“But could you please provide me with a real world example by which no active harm is done to a non-consenting adult, but you still believe the govt./authority may legitimately proscribe?”
Well, it depends on what you mean by “active harm”. If a hotdog stand guy follows his own procedures rather than Safe-Serv procedures, and statistically more of his customers get sick than someone who follows Safe-Serv, is that “active harm”? I’d say yes. Libertarians usually say “no”.
If an activity doesn’t inflict harm, I generally don’t see a reason to regulate it. But to me, indirect harm is just as harmful as someone putting a gun to my face and pulling the trigger.
The example I gave before was FDIC. Uninsured bank accounts can be cheaper compared to insured accounts. So a bank might forego insurance if FDIC was voluntary (a perfect example of where “voluntariness” is not an option, because it allows harm.) and this would make them cheaper than the competititon that DID have insurance. And that natuarlly leads to a race to the bottom where no one has insurance. And then as soon as a run on one bank starts, they all have a run, and then the whole economy crashes.
That’s the Great Depression all over again. Libertarians have this completely illogical dogma that tells them that people have a “choice” about whether they want insurance or not, and this “choice” is driven by doing whats in their best interest. And an economic crash isn’t in their best interest, so people would never choose to put their money in a bank that didn’t have FDIC.
They might as well be talking about the transubtantiation that turns wine into blood. It’s complete nonsense, and doesn’t describe reality. It describes what a libertarian wants to believe: that total freedom always produces perfect results.
But it doesn’t. And the prisoner’s dilemma is irrefutable proof that unregulated choice can sometimes produce the worst possible outcome.
If you have an example of government regulation that doesn’t attempt to reduce harm, then maybe we could discuss something more specific that you had in mind.
“will you please stop referring to *single celled* conceptuses (concepti?), if only because it’s irrelevant to the discussion”
Why do you say its irrelevant? The whole uproar over stem cells was over the cells being taken from a blastocyst, as few as 50 to 150 cells. There is absolutely no way 50 cells is enough to have any subjective notion of pain or feelings, there is no way 50 cells can in any physical way resemble an adult human being. And yet, stem cell research was opposed because it “murdered” something made up of 100 cells.
The “morning after” pill has seen a similar uproar over a single fertilized egg for the last decade or so, and it’s still going on now. In 2010, the Washington State Pharmacy Board said that pharmacists have a right to refuse to give out the pill.
So, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about saying that a single cell fertilized egg is not relevant.
“how about I believe it has the right not to be killed?”
This comes preloaded with the implication that a single cell has rights. You keep saying how you are all about consistency and all that, but this implication is purely subjective, it’s something that comes purely from your subjective mind.
Logically speaking, its an unproven premise.
And its *fine* that your views of what we as a state should enforce on other people are based on your subjective, irrational drives. Just like its *fine* that some people have a thing for protecting horses. Just like I eat meat, but would like to keep harm to animals to a minimum.
It’s all irrational when you dig down to the deepest levels. What’s funny is how you point at someone who says “horses are part of our heritage” and laugh and say they’re being irrational hypocrites. But you say that a single cell fertilized egg has rights, which brings along with it an entire world of irrational, subjective meaning, and you think you’re being consistent and logical.
The only difference between you and the guy who likes horse heritage, is you can see the part of their thinking that is irrational, but you can’t see it in yourself. Saying a single cell has rights is not rational nor logical nor consistent. It is entirely subjective. It is driven by deep emotional thinking on your part.
Just like my wish to minimize harm is also driven by a deep emotional drive on my part. But I get the source of my view is emotional. You seem unable to see your emotional component for what it is. Instead, you relate to it as if it were the unmoved mover. It is a priori, and it is entirely subjective, but you relate to it as if it were proven empirically and objectively.
Your choice of language almost always avoids the observer. A perfect example of this is when you said: ““Harm” is admittedly a subjective word”
It’s a passive sentence. Just like saying “mistakes were made” is passive. But who made the mistakes? Who makes it subjective? You keep trying to remove yourself, your subjective contribution, from the equation, and act as if the objective world just happens to be what your subjective view holds it to be.
Granting rights to a single cell is an act of an individual. It isn’t something given by the objective world. It’s something you do. But whenever you talk about it, you always seem to relate to it as if it were just how the world is, rather than it is something you contribute to it, something you created, something subjective that you added to the objective world.
“My goal isn’t perfection, or perfect logical consistency, because it’s impossible.”
Of course. This is a bone of contention I have with the more radical elements of animal rights activists. If you want to live in such a fashion that doesn’t harm *any* living thing, well, better go live in a cave and become a fruitarian. I respect your desire to minimize harm. I’m merely pointing out that giving up meat would go a great deal further towards this goal. (I’ll also say that I hope you purchase your food very conscientiously (eg cage free, free range, grass fed, etc) if minimizing harm to animals is a concern of yours). You must acknowledge though, in your case, that your choice is driven not *just* by a goal to minimize harm, but by an element of sentiment as well, in this case towards horses?
“I don’t understand why this bothers you other than you think they’re being irrational while you’re being perfectly rational. ”
Firstly, rationality is not my sine qua non here, consistency is. Secondly, what bothers me is not the lack of consistency, its the presumption on the part of the speaker that he/she gets to define for me what my culture and heritage ought to be. Look, in following this debate people who want horse slaughter outlawed generally fall into two camps. One is motivated by the cruelty and suffering that they see as being inherent in the industry. Fine, that’s something I’m willing to discuss, I have not a word to say against them making that argument. But the other is essentially “Real Americans don’t eat horses!” (actually a comment on that page I linked you to), in the likes of T Boone Pickens. To which my response is “Goddamit, that’s not your decision to make!” Real Americans eat hot dogs and hamburgers. Real Americans drink beer. Real Americans oppose gun control. Real Americans don’t watch faggoty foreign films. On the whole it’s a sentiment I find rather aggravating.
“Just because someone likes horses for some irrational reason doesn’t make them any more irrational than any other human who was driven to get themselves out of bed that morning.”
Very true. But that doesn’t give them the right to make me share their sentiment.
“And some transactions are such that by the time failure occurs, a boycott is pointless”
Yes, but unless the transaction took place with a clear caveat emptor in place, ie under false premises, then that’s something that I’d agree would be legally sanctionable (ie fraud).
“Libertarians have this completely illogical dogma that tells them that people have a “choice” about whether they want insurance or not, and this “choice” is driven by doing whats in their best interest. And an economic crash isn’t in their best interest, so people would never choose to put their money in a bank that didn’t have FDIC.”
Ah, ma cher, you preempted me! On that last part I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Some would avail themselves of the cheaper but riskier institutions, on that we are agreed. The question is “how many”? And I guess there’s really only one way to find out (which is why I suppose, if this is pretty high up on your priority list, you’ll do anything to keep Ron Paul out of office, eh?)
“If you have an example of government regulation that doesn’t attempt to reduce harm, then maybe we could discuss something more specific that you had in mind.” I don’t know if I could find a regulation that’s so, er, whimsical. But minimizing harm often comes at a cost to liberty. Generally speaking, I’ve found regulations fall into three categories: 1. They keep people from harming each other, 2. They keep people from harming themselves, and 3. They ensure people help other people. I don’t have a problem with 1, but with 2 and 3 as you might expect, I do. For example, in many states motorcyclists are required to wear helmets. The rationale being if they get into an accident, they’ll do more harm to themselves, and we the taxpayers well might end up footing the bill for their care. Well and good. But what if we had in place a system whereby every motorcyclist was given the option of either wearing a helmet, or signing a legal document upon receiving his license that he/she might go unhelmeted, but in the event of an accident only he/she could be held liable for their health costs? In this situation the objection becomes “We can’t let people take such risks to begin with, we’re doing this for their own good”. As you can see, I have a problem with that. Smoking being banned in private establishments is another example.
“there is no way 50 cells can in any physical way resemble an adult human being.”
Are you saying that humanity is something that should be decided by physical resemblance? Because I’ll tell you, a week old infant resembles a 14 week old fetus more than it resembles you or I.
“The “morning after” pill has seen a similar uproar over a single fertilized egg for the last decade or so, and it’s still going on now. In 2010, the Washington State Pharmacy Board said that pharmacists have a right to refuse to give out the pill.
So, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about saying that a single cell fertilized egg is not relevant.”
Look, I’ll state this as plainly as I can. Abortion doesn’t involve a single-celled conceptus. Never. It cannot, by definition. I don’t know the specifics of the morning-after pill law that you described, but if it’s a morning-after pill that they’re talking about, then it’s probably not an abortifacent but a contraceptive (to which I have no objection) or a contragestive (to which I have a different objection).
“But you say that a single cell fertilized egg has rights, which brings along with it an entire world of irrational, subjective meaning, and you think you’re being consistent and logical…Granting rights to a single cell is an act of an individual. It isn’t something given by the objective world. It’s something you do.”
No more subjective than saying slaves or, going further back, Indians were humans.
You know, the idea of “natural rights” is actually one that I’m not entirely comfortable with. From a purely pragmatic perspective, it would seem self-evident that “rights” only exist insofar as we as a society choose to extend them.
“Saying a single cell has rights is not rational nor logical nor consistent. It is entirely subjective. It is driven by deep emotional thinking on your part.”
Again, I’m not saying a fetus has inalienable rights, any more than you or I do. What I’m saying is that it’s a human organism; upon this point I don’t think you’ll find a single doctor or biologist in dispute. And part of my *subjective* framework and outlook is the belief, as described, of non-aggression. And part and parcel of this is the belief that every human has the right not to be arbitrarily killed (which is why I brought up the artificial uteri, eh, last month?)
“You keep trying to remove yourself, your subjective contribution, from the equation, and act as if the objective world just happens to be what your subjective view holds it to be.”
It’s true I do try and keep emotion out of debates, since in my experience it’s easier to get people to listen to you, and inevitably they start to talk past each other if a discussion gets heated. I want to communicate and learn by speaking with you, rather than blast your idiocy into cinders with my awesome, flawless wisdom. I have opinions on which I base my beliefs and actions, and I’ll readily admit they’re fully subjective. I described them at some point I remember; here they are again, somewhat succinctly: I value liberty over one’s physical well-being, I value negative rights over positive rights, and I believe aggression is always an evil thing.
Mea culpa, upon rereading what I wrote, I should have written “saying slaves or, going further back, Indians were people” (although in the case of Indians I think the debate centered more upon the question of whether or not they had souls. Now there’s an utterly rationalistic debate for you!)
Amitava: “This is a bone of contention I have with the more radical elements of animal rights activists. If you want to live in such a fashion that doesn’t harm *any* living thing, well, better go live in a cave and become a fruitarian. I respect your desire to minimize harm. I’m merely pointing out that giving up meat would go a great deal further towards this goal.”
I note that while you are able to acknowledge a lack of perfection in others, and while you are able to point out a lack of perfection in my thinking, you didn’t provide an example of your own imperfection.
“Firstly, rationality is not my sine qua non here, consistency is.”
Whether it is “rationality” or “consistency”, the problem is you think you’re implementing it perfectly. The thing you continusously avoid is just how much of your “consistency” is your own ad-hoc interpretation of what is and is not “rational” or “consistent”, or whatever you want to call it.
I keep trying to tell you that you are drawing “lines” all over the place. And you keep acting as if you only draw one line (“consistency”) and acting as if everything you do after you chose consistency is nothing more than infalible implementation.
The idea that a single cell has any rights whatsoever is purely your doing. It isn’t anything attached to “consistency”. It isn’t anything attached to any kind of objective reality. It is something YOU bring to the conversation. It is something YOU insist be the moral interpretation of your version of consistency.
And yet, you never acknowedge it as your own subjective interpretation. You just say you’re all about “consistency”, and you think every other position you adopt is nothing more than an outcome of that “consistencty” position.
IT. IS. NOT.
This isn’t about me trying to convince you to my point of view. This isn’t about me trying to convince you to give up your point of view. This is just me trying to tell you that you are no were near as “consistent” as you think. I don’t have a problem with your position. But in trying to discuss them with you, you seem incapable of introspection here. YOu seem incapable of seeing your own subjective contribution to your position is far more complex than just combining “harm none” and “be consistent” and jumping to the completely unconnected assertion that a single cell fertilized egg has rights of any kind.
“You must acknowledge though, in your case, that your choice is driven not *just* by a goal to minimize harm, but by an element of sentiment as well, in this case towards horses?”
See. That right there. You’re perfectly willing to assume that there is some kind of “sentimentality” or irrationality or something illogical in MY point of thinking. And yet, no where in this entire thread have you ever acknowleged that “harm none” is one level, “be consistent” is a second level, and “single cell fertilized eggs have rights” is a completely unrelated third level that you brougt in on your part.
The first two is unconnected to the third. I hold to “minimize harm” and I prefer rational over irrational, but I don’t give single cell fertilized eggs the level of rights that you do.
You think I must be sentimental about horses, that there must be another level to my point of view that would have me treat horses differently, but you can’t see that’s exactly what you’re doing about a fertilized egg.
“I don’t know the specifics of the morning-after pill law that you described, but if it’s a morning-after pill that they’re talking about, then it’s probably not an abortifacent but a contraceptive (to which I have no objection) or a contragestive (to which I have a different objection)”
You don’t know what the morning after pill is???
There has been disputes as to whether it prevents a single cell fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall or whether it actually will cause an attached fertilized egg to *detach* from the uterine wall.
What it does or doesn’t do is not my point. My point is that people have gotten themselves worked up into a moral tizzy over a single cell fertilized egg potentially being “aborted”.
Same goes for stem cell research. The cells are taken from something that has multiplied into 50 to 150 cells.
In both cases, neither a single fertilized egg nor 100 or so cells can feel anything, think anything, want anything, or maintain any kind of subjective thought.
“Again, I’m not saying a fetus has inalienable rights, any more than you or I do. What I’m saying is that it’s a human organism; upon this point I don’t think you’ll find a single doctor or biologist in dispute. And part of my *subjective* framework and outlook is the belief, as described, of non-aggression. And part and parcel of this is the belief that every human has the right not to be arbitrarily killed (which is why I brought up the artificial uteri, eh, last month?)”
Saying “a single cell fertilized egg is human” and then saying “every human has the right not be be arbitarily killed” then adding that up and saying “fertilized eggs should not be arbitrarily killed” is your own subjective math. It isn’t objective. One does not neccessarily come from the other.
You keep relating to this as if all you’re doing is saying “1+1=2″. But what you’re really doing is more like “How much does god weigh?” => “6 pounds of flax”. You’re talking about pins and mass/volume, and then coming to the conclusion that 42 angels can fit on the head of a pin.
It’s nowhere near as linear/logical as you think it is.
“I don’t know if I could find a regulation that’s so, er, whimsical. But minimizing harm often comes at a cost to liberty.”
Oh no you didn’t.
This is standard Libertarian Propaganda 101. Everything a Libertarian agrees to regulate is just hunky-dorey fine. Eveyrthing else is infringing on someone’s liberty.
If you’re going to pull this on me, you’re not actually taking part in a two-way conversation here. And I have no interest in having a moral conversation with someone incapable of introspection.
“It’s true I do try and keep emotion out of debates”
(head-desk)
See. That right there. You think I’m protecting horses out of “sentimentality” but you think you’re being the rational, logical, unemotional, objective, non-subjective person here.
The problem is that you have some seriously negative opinions about “emotions” to the point that you’ve removed as many as you can and denied a whole bunch of them even exist in you when they’re clearly visible to others.
“I have opinions on which I base my beliefs and actions, and I’ll readily admit they’re fully subjective. I described them at some point I remember; here they are again, somewhat succinctly: I value liberty over one’s physical well-being, I value negative rights over positive rights, and I believe aggression is always an evil thing.”
I get that’s what you think you’re doing. But its not what you’re doing. You granting rights to a fertilized egg is not a mathematical extension of the above premises. You granting rights to a fertilized egg is another premise. It isn’t an outcome of anything else. It is part of your moral compass, and you’re just reporting which way its pointing.
You think the only “subjective” bits your morality is based on is “I value liberty over one’s physical well-being, I value negative rights over positive rights, and I believe aggression is always an evil thing.” and you act as if *everything* else you believe falls logically out of extending those subjective bits to their natural conclusions.
I could adopt that very same list and come to a different conclusion about abortion. I pretty much do. The thing is, I realize that my view on abortion is yet another subjective aspect of my moral compass. You think your view on abortion is the only possible valid outcome of your moral premises.
But you seem to dislike the idea of emotion so much that you’ve convinced yourself that the only “emotional” or “subjective” piece of your morality are a handful of rudimentary rules that are so generic that almost everyone could agree with them in principle, and yet everyone would likely implement them differently than you.
“I note that while you are able to acknowledge a lack of perfection in others, and while you are able to point out a lack of perfection in my thinking, you didn’t provide an example of your own imperfection.”
Regarding what issue? Which animals deserve special status? I’m not sure how there can be any logical imperfections to my stance, since I don’t accept animal rights to begin with. It’s not that my opinion is imperfect, it’s irrelevant. Although now that you’ve brought it up, here’s an inconsistency of mine for you: I probably wouldn’t be too opposed to preventing the use of animal testing for cosmetics and clothing. How ‘bout that? Doubtless were I to suddenly find myself governor tomorrow, a good many more would crop up. (Hey, I’m also not a pacifist, remember?) Although I’ll also say that in none of these cases would I say my position was ethically justified. War, for example, is something that I see as fundamentally evil. And yet, in certain circumstances, I might even support conscription. In that scenario, however, I wouldn’t say that it was “right” or “justified”. The most I could say, given a set of objectives, is that it was “necessary”.
“The idea that a single cell has any rights whatsoever is purely your doing. It isn’t anything attached to “consistency”. It isn’t anything attached to any kind of objective reality.”
I’ve acknowledged that what you said is correct. I’ve never said that “a conceptus has rights” is an objective, absolute statement. I believe it to be true, obviously, and would like to see rights legally extended to them; but be that as it may, the *any* concept of rights is non-objective; rights don’t exist of their own accord, they exist only insofar as we choose to grant them.
“There has been disputes as to whether it prevents a single cell fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall or whether it actually will cause an attached fertilized egg to *detach* from the uterine wall.”
Cite please? This is most interesting, to the furthest extent of my knowledge emergency contraceptions all work by preventive measures. Perhaps that issue in Washington pertained to RU-486? I’m genuinely curious to know where you learned of the emergency contraception mechanism debate, btw. Even taking that to be the case, however, from what you’ve described it doesn’t sound like the conceptus is killed, but expelled and allowed then to die.
“In both cases, neither a single fertilized egg nor 100 or so cells can feel anything, think anything, want anything, or maintain any kind of subjective thought.”
We don’t know any of those things, although I am of the same opinion. In any case, they are human organisms. That is an objective statement and beyond dispute. I believe a “human organism”=”person”, which is an entirely subjective statement and, obviously, subject to enormous dispute.
““fertilized eggs should not be arbitrarily killed” is your own subjective math. It isn’t objective. One does not neccessarily come from the other.”
Of course it’s subjective. Again, this devolves to the idea of rights, which are inherently non-objective.
“(head-desk)
See. That right there. You think I’m protecting horses out of “sentimentality” but you think you’re being the rational, logical, unemotional, objective, non-subjective person here.
Eesh. I see I haven’t done a good job making myself understood. I was referring to the actual carrying on of the discussion, eg tone of voice, choice of words. I try not to write emotively when carrying forth with a discussion, as you have rather noted. I do this not because it’s “better” or “purer” but because I find people tend to get more easily distracted when anger seeps into an argument (this recollects the debate on Scalzi’s blog about the utility of “calling a bigot a bigot”. I didn’t say anything there, but in my experience if you’re interested in substantively engaging a homophobe, saying “your attitude is prejudiced” has a great deal more utility than saying “you’re a hateful asshole”, as much as one may derive satisfaction from the latter. But I’ll admit there are times when I’ve allowed my emotions to show their heels to my better judgment. In fact one such instance pertained to you, my dear sir! Again on Scalzi’s blog, you had made some statement to someone else along the lines of “you don’t get to tell someone to jump just because you’re the bossman”, and I interjected some snide “witticism” comparing you to Eugene Debs or something. Yeahhh…
“I get that’s what you think you’re doing. But its not what you’re doing. You granting rights to a fertilized egg is not a mathematical extension of the above premises. You granting rights to a fertilized egg is another premise.”
Well, no. If a fetus is a person (and that if is *the* if of the issue), then outlawing abortion would fit rather clearly into the “non-aggression” & “negative rights” column.
“I could adopt that very same list and come to a different conclusion about abortion. I pretty much do.”
Do you really? I would imagine that you support such things are a right to an education, or a living wage.
“This isn’t about me trying to convince you to my point of view. This isn’t about me trying to convince you to give up your point of view.”
And I’m not trying to convince you of the righteousness of my own position, or convert you to the pro-life camp. You know, I think I ought to take the opportunity to explain myself. The genesis of my desire to engage in this discussion, and why from the get-go I placed such emphasis on “rationality”, was not meant to impugn your capacity for reason. It was because you made this statement on Scalzi’s blog (to someone else):
You’re saying a single fertilized egg is a “little human”? And abortion of even a fertilized egg is some form of “murder”?
The note of incredulity in that question immediately led me to believe that you were implying that pro-life=religious, that no clearheaded, objective, rational, secular person could oppose legalized abortion. You’ll forgive me for making the assumption, I hope, and endeavouring so fervently to disabuse you of it; it’s a preconception I’ve run into again and again and again from pro-choice individuals (although in all fairness far too many in the pro-life camp do absolutely nothing to dissuade this, with their incessant obsession on “God/Jesus/Bible”. It drives me positively to distraction, not because it’s exclusive or non-productive, but because it’s *irrelevant*. Yes, America is by the numbers a Christian country. BUT NOT ALL AMERICANS ARE CHRISTIAN, DAMMIT! If you’re speaking outside of an explicitly Christian venue, then why are you still preaching to the choir?)
“AS a right to an education” not “are a right”, I meant to say.
Also, the comparison was actually to Bill Haywood. You had said “And you sure as hell don’t get to say “I shouldn’t have to do any of this, if you don’t like what I do as bossman, go work somewhere else”,
to which I issued the priceless (and of course utterly non-emotional) rejoinder
“Bossman, heh. Just love the turn-of-the-century agitation language, with all its frenzied angst; very Bill Haywood. Bravo, Greg, bravo!”
Oh and one more thing, please disregard that statement pertaining to neg vs pos rights, as upon rereading it I see you were referring specifically to abortion.
Amitava: ““I’d rather a thousand die before a single man is forced against his will to help them”.”
Amitava: “I don’t think we should be legally obliged to look after the welfare of strangers.”
Amitava: “I might even support conscription. In that scenario, however, I wouldn’t say that it was “right” or “justified”. The most I could say, given a set of objectives, is that it was “necessary”.”
I think this is a signpost that says we’re done.
Amitava: “If a fetus is a person (and that if is *the* if of the issue), then outlawing abortion would fit rather clearly into the “non-aggression” & “negative rights” column.”
If a fetus is a person? Go here and grep for the phrase “That’s not an argument; it’s a conditional statement.”
This is your subjective premise, the thing you keep saying is true, and upon which you base your entire moral stand against abortion. And yet, “if a fetus is a person” isn’t something that you’ve proven.
“a fetus is a person” is dogma.
Amitava: “The note of incredulity in that question immediately led me to believe that you were implying that pro-life=religious, that no clearheaded, objective, rational, secular person could oppose legalized abortion.”
I was implying that with regards to a single cell fertilized egg, pro-life==dogmatic, not religious. You’re not religious. But you’re dogmatic.
“a single cell fertilized egg is a person with rights” is a wholly dogmatic position.
70 posts back and forth, and you’ve never understood this. It’s one of the “lines” you drew in the moral sand. It’s your own subjective interpretation that you use as a *premise* to the rest of your morality. A *premise*, not a conclusion. It is where your moral compass already points.
I’ve been trying to get you to introspect about this specific point of your moral system, But after 70 posts back and forth you have not once been able to address it as anything more than a “truth”. You have not been able to question this point even once. You have been able to hedge your words by invoking it with conditional statements, but you have never questioned the truth of it. Because it is dogmatic truth to you. It is not something you can question. It’s like water to a fish or “fire is hot” to you. It is beyond questioning.
You want to talk about “sentimentality” towards not eating horses? What do you think has given you this dogmatic position that a single cell fertilized egg is a person with rights if not anything but sentimentality?
And again, 70 posts back and forth, and you cannot see this about yourself. You have not once exhibited an ability to perform introspection, to look in on yourself, to examine your moral compass and question what makes it point the way it points.
And to me, introspection, is the only thing that makes a moral discussion worth having. And after 70 posts and… holy shit… 35,000 words… back and forth, you’ve not once shown any interest in introspection about whether or not a fetus is a person with rights. It is simply a given for you.
Which is fine, but not a conversation I have any interest in having. And that is the biggest signpost of all that this conversation has hit every last possible dead end, and can go no further.
“If a fetus is a person? Go here and grep for the phrase “That’s not an argument; it’s a conditional statement.”
Note the key word “if”.
“This is your subjective premise, the thing you keep saying is true…And yet, “if a fetus is a person” isn’t something that you’ve proven.”"
I’ve never said that fetal personhood is truth. I’ve never sought to prove it. The only statement I’ve made that I’d say had any truth value is that “a fetus is a human organism.” It is upon that that my position is ultimately predicated. I don’t like using terms like “person” and “murder” because they’re subjective and malleable, which is why I’ve tried to strenuously avoid making explicit statements that incorporate them (I’d wager I’ve never said “A fetus is a person” or “Abortion is murder”).
“You have been able to hedge your words by invoking it with conditional statements, but you have never questioned the truth of it. Because it is dogmatic truth to you.”
Every moral code is ultimately subjective and dogmatic (that last, at least, if it is to be applied consistently). I’m fine with that. However, if by dogmatic you mean that I unthinkingly follow a given code simply on account of having been told to, having been raised that way, or whatever, then I’d have to beg to differ.
“You have not once exhibited an ability to perform introspection, to look in on yourself, to examine your moral compass and question what makes it point the way it points.”
You might be interested to know that I was pretty fervently pro-choice up until I was 16 or 17 (it was my junior year of high school, I know), and it wasn’t up until a little over 6 years ago that I became decidedly pro-life. This is a subject to which I have indeed devoted considerable thought and reflection.
“You want to talk about “sentimentality” towards not eating horses?”
Well I see, after having discoursed upon the subject with you, that yours is not a position based upon sentiment. You have a defined purpose (minimize suffering to the greatest extent practicable) which seems to form the foundation of your position. Perhaps you might be heartened to know that California, as of today, has banned the production of foie gras. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinion/sunday/foie-gras-a-faux-pas.html
“The law’s critics say gavage is hardly more stress-inducing than the many other things humans do to the animals they eat. The corporate operations that grow and slaughter pigs, poultry and cattle represent animal cruelty on an immense scale, they say, about which the foie gras ban does nothing.
But the law’s supporters argue that even small steps toward humaneness are important…”
I immediately thought of our discussion when I read that.
Anyway, I will again emphasize: I would never seek to posit as a truth statement that “a fetus is a person with rights.” I would say that because a fetus is a human organism, I believe it *should* be accorded rights as a person.
I’m sorry if this conversation has proved to be a source of frustration for you; my own interest in such things is to ascertain the “why” and “how” of a disagreement between two well-informed parties, the actual nidus, as it were, of the discord. You place a great deal of value upon introspection; I would be curious to know whether this discussion has engendered any within yourself?
Well anyway Greg, I hope I’ve provided a satisfactory response. I don’t know if you’ll see this or not, but feel free to ignore it, or if you’d like to have the last word, you need but say so and I’ll not respond. It’s been an engaging intercourse, in any event!
*Amitava*: Every moral code is ultimately subjective and dogmatic
No. It’s not.
The only way that would be true is if you were willing to engage in rhetoric like “What does the word ‘is’ really mean?”.
Otherwise, “harm” is not subjective. It might be measured in a million different shades because some harm is worse than others, but that makes it relative, not subjective and dogmatic.
But the law’s supporters argue that even small steps toward humaneness are important…”
Yep. It’s better to improve things a little bit and be inconsistent (add protection to one species while leaving another unprotected), than to demand consistency and oppose a small improvement because it it’s inconsistent.
*Drachefly*: I think your post on the Whatever of July 31st at 3:46 was excellent.
Thanks. Bruce Schneier’s book is extremely good. The guy is a genius. Highly recommend the book.
I think the way he describes innuendo explains perfectly why people generally don’t tell a creeper to fuck off on the first syllable. Because there might have been a misunderstanding.
I was just at a party a few days ago that had a rather large argument erupt. People were shouting, crying, all sorts of stuff. And at some point, folks calmed down enough that they could get beyond the emotional reactions they were having, and everyone saw that the two things that caused the argument in the first place were both misinterpreted by the other person. Things were pretty much cleared up by the end of the night, but that’s partly because the people involved were mature enough to hear the other person rather than insist that their emotional reaction and their interpretation must reflect the other person’s intent.
There’s clearly a need for humans as social creatures to allow for this misunderstanding and clear it up via innuendo and indirect conversation.
But I think once the purpose of this innuendo is understood, then folks can get that it’s no longer needed once it becomes clear the other person is intentionally disregarding their wishes.
i.e. Someone leaning into your personal space might be just a misunderstanding or something other than harrassment. So, it makes sense to respond/correct indirectly, perhaps simply by backing up. But once the person had demonstrated that it’s not a misunderstanding, then something direct is sufficient, like, “no, go away”.
I think Genevieve Valentine handled things about as perfectly as it could be handled. Her first response to a weird remark was to be polite and remove herself. THe next time, he grabbed her and said something lewd, his intentions were clear and there was no misunderstanding to be had and she was very direct with a “No, you don’t get to touch me”.
It seems like everyone else just dropped the ball after that. It’s too bad things had to get so bad around this.
htom: Taxes don’t have to be a Ponzi scheme (although they could become one.) I don’t think of them as theft unless they actually are. Supposedly, you get immediate value (not promises of increased value a long way down the road) for what’s collected. Roads, bridges, … military. Schools.
I think the claim that taxes must provide an “immediate value” or its theft or some sort of scam is unfounded.
One of my favorite government programs is FDIC. Banks pay money in, and get ZERO benefit unless they collapse and need the insurance. The benefit is the opposite of “immediate”. It’s way, way, way delayed. It’s insurance, not a scam, not a ponzi scheme.
htom: that’s where and when I first heard that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme, from an Econ professor. I’ll guess half of the class never did believe him. Too much faith in government, even though they were protesting that very government.
Well, protesting America’s involvement in Vietnam does not condemn everything American nor everything related to the American government. This is a hasty generalization fallacy.
As to whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme or not, I think if we can’t agree that tax doesn’t need “immediate benefit”, then we’re already at an impasse and Social Security is three road-blocks from where we are now.
That’s the general description of insurance; you pay in and hope to have no need to make a claim.
Social Security you pay in and hope to live long enough to collect payments in retirement from the “investment” you’d made. No, the scheme is that those working when you retire will pay. Either as a direct transfer of funds, or the power of the federal government to tax and repay the Social Security funds previously “invested”.
I don’t see an inherent “this is beyond the scope of govenment” problem with this approach.
Government grants for going to college are based on the idea that college means you’ll have a higher income and as a result pay higher taxes. So, someone paid for my college grants with their taxes. And I’ve been paying for other people’s grants with my taxes.
I’m not seeing the problem. But maybe you have a problem with government grants for college?
I think a ponzi scheme is quite distinct from Social Security. A ponzi scheme cannot be maintained indefinitely because the promised return on investment requires more and more investors to put money into the scheme.
Social Security isn’t promising a “return on investment” or at least not the exhorbinant sort of ROI that a Ponzi scheme is driven by to find new investors.
If you want to shoe-horn Social Security into a Ponzi-Scheme setup, then it’s a Ponzi Scheme by it’s physical structure, HOWEVER it has such extremely small return on investment such that it isn’t driven to implode the way a ponzi scheme implodes.
If I promise you 20% return on investment in a month, you give me a hundred bucks, I give you $20 bucks a month later and convince you to roll the rest over. I now have $80 and can do this for a couple more months before it implodes. If I find more investors, they put in more money, I give them %20 back, and give you another %20, and no one is the wiser that the system is unsustainable. Once everyone is in the system, there is no new money coming in, and the system cannot sustain itself.
Because of the promised %20 return on investment every month, for every investor, the system must eventually implode over the long run.
Social Security isn’t like that. It doesn’t promise 20% return on investment, it only pays out after people hit retirement, it pays out for a short period compared to the time spent paying it.
It doesn’t implode because it breaks even over the long run.
The only problem with social security right now is the baby boom is going to put more people into retirement than usual. And that could be fixed by increasing the limit to how much people pay in every year or some other adjustment so that it works out to a break even system, and then readjust after teh baby boom generation dies off.
Greg | 16-Apr-12 at 4:08 pm | Permalink
I’ve disabled the requirement to “register” before posting, at least for now. If the spammers find me, I’ll have to turn it back on. But for now, it’s off.
Amitava D. | 16-Apr-12 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
Hey there, Mr. Greg! I’ll be a-comin’!
Amitava D. | 18-Apr-12 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
“If I prick my finger and spill a drop of blood, those cells have chromosomes that came from both my parents. Is spilling a drop of blood and letting those cells die, murder?… If you define “life” to be as little as one cell with 46 chromosomes, then how many times do I commit murder when I nick myself shaving?”
Do you really not see the distinction here? Those chromosomes came from you, which ties into the larger point. Your blood cells are a part of your tissue (specifically your blood), just as a hepatocyte is a part of your liver. They’re not organisms, they’re a part of an organism (in this case you).
“The thing is, most “single cell is LIFE!” folks are religious people”
Don’t I know it; it’s something that as an agnostic I find quite frustrating at times.
“because they generally view it as some magical mystical “soul” enters that single cell immediately after conception and killing the cell is killing the soul. But it doesn’t require the person be religious.”
Meh. I don’t know if we have such a thing as a “soul”, and quite frankly I don’t care. One can hold a valid position for completely irrelevant (or even wrong) reasons. Doubtless there are plenty of people in this country who would say that theft and murder are wrong “because the ten commandments say so!”
“There is no subjective experience of being alive in a single cell organism.”
Just as there is no subjective experience of being in a vegetative state, eh? Heck, for that matter, do you remember your first few months of life? You make this claim with the self-assurance of it being absolute fact, but how can you speak for anyone’s experience other than your own?
“what is different between what you’re doing and someone anthropomorphising an inanimate object.”
Well, the most obvious would be that a conceptus is not an inanimate object, whatever else it might be.
“What is it to be human? And rather than come up with the “right” answer, you chose the answer that satisfied your own requirement that it be the “least arbitrary”…”
That’s because “least arbitrary” and “most objective”, so far as I can reason, are how we ought to find the *best* (or right, if you prefer) answer. Otherwise you’re going to have to go by gut instinct, which is what I guess I take you to be implying? The problem therein is that what “feels” right is even more variable between people. Whose gut instinct are we going to go by in crafting the laws we live by? Yours? Mine? Jerry Fallwell’s? When it comes to issues such as this, I guarantee you that there are those who would just as soon judge someone who was born with a trisomy (or hermaphroditic, for that matter) as less-than-human, based on how they “feel”.
“Least arbitrary has nothing to do with whether it is the RIGHT definition.”
All right; how do we go about finding the best/right definition? And that’s not a rhetorical question, I’m genuinely interested in better learning your thoughts and perspective.
If I may observe, I’ve noted a tendency of yours, usually in reference to libertarian thought, to raise a hue and cry against “arbitrary” rules that “just so happen to fit one’s views of right and wrong”. If I may be so bold, is that not what people of *every* school of thought and politic do? Our (libertarians’)views may be arbitrary, then, but at least they are the most permissive and respectful of individual autonomy, something I believe to be an absolute (“God-given” if I were religious, I suppose), right. (I suppose you’ll see a strain of irony in that statement, given the context of the discussion).
How I should love to sit with you over a pot of tea and biscuits! I’ve often dwelt upon your screeds, and wondered where the crux of the differences in philosophy might lie, and of what nature they might be. Out of curiosity, satisfy me one random question, if you would: Duty to rescue laws, thumbs up or down?
Amitava D. | 18-Apr-12 at 12:18 pm | Permalink
BTW, I’d meant to apologize for having delayed so in my response; plumb forgot about it, I had!
Greg | 18-Apr-12 at 9:13 pm | Permalink
“Do you really not see the distinction here? Those chromosomes came from you, which ties into the larger point. Your blood cells are a part of your tissue (specifically your blood), just as a hepatocyte is a part of your liver. They’re not organisms, they’re a part of an organism (in this case you).”
Well, then the chromosomes and their source doesn’t matter. I could take one of my cells and have it cloned into something that would grow into a fully independent person. All the chromosomes come from me, but at some poitn it would be human.
you just changed your measure from chromosomes to “organism” versus “part of an organism”.
Did you know that cell-count wise, you’re mostly individual organisms? Bacteria cells outnumber “human” cells by 100 to 1. Many of them are extremely important for the human portion of you to survive. But they’re “organisms”, not part of your organism. they have their own DNA, not copies of your dna.
Excellent TED talk video here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html
Greg: “There is no subjective experience of being alive in a single cell organism.”
Amitava: “Just as there is no subjective experience of being in a vegetative state, eh? … how can you speak for anyone’s experience other than your own?”
That argument would require that no doctor would be able to follow any person’s living will to not put them on life support if there was no chance of recovery, because, hey, how do we know what their *subjective* experience is, right?
I think if I were in a vegatative state and there was no hope of recovery, that I should be able to choose to have life support withdrawn. But that’s a subjective thing. What exactly is “vegatative”? The whole terri schiavo fiasco centered around a bunch of religious people trying to argue that she was NOT in a vegatative state, that she was responding to simulus. But the truth was she WAS in a vegatative state, she was NOT responsive to outside stimulus, and she had no hope of recovery. Some of that can be objective, Schiavo’s autopsy showed that something like three-quarters of her brain had liquified, but still, it comes down to a subjective call on whether or not she is having a subjective experience.
A fertilized egg has no subjective experience. Has no experience of pain or happiness or hunger or joy. It has no history of a subjective experience. It only has a *potential* for eventually *becoming* something that *can* have a subjective experience.
A fertilized egg has no more subjective experience than a single red blood cell.
Amitava: “I’ve noted a tendency of yours, usually in reference to libertarian thought, to raise a hue and cry against “arbitrary” rules that “just so happen to fit one’s views of right and wrong”. If I may be so bold, is that not what people of *every* school of thought and politic do?”
No. I come up with what I think is a moral system for living, and then I try to live by it, even if it is inconvenient for me personally. Morality is a systemic thing. It comes up with a set of rules that respects individuals but works for the society as a whole as well.
For example, the golden rule is a good starting point to demonstrate the issue. A pure individualist would never adopt the golden rule for their own behavior, because it creates scenarios where they would ahve to make choices that would sacrifice their own self interest.
“Our (libertarians’)views may be arbitrary, then, but at least they are the most permissive and respectful of individual autonomy, something I believe to be an absolute (“God-given” if I were religious, I suppose), right.”
Individual interest and societal interests are not the same. There is no morality in individual interests. Me doing whatever I want to do is not morality, its just me being selfish. There’s nothing innately wrong about being selfish in and of itself. But when an individual is selfish at the expense of everyone else, for example a theif, then selfishness runs into morality.
The way I try to find the moral solution is to come up with a set of rules that doesn’t identify individual people by name, but rather identify what people do based on their actions, their roles. Then I try to “simulate” what would happen if those rules were applied to the situation, and each time I simulate, I put myself in a different role in the scenario. If I were the thief, if I were the person being thieved from, if I were a bystander, if I were a random citizen, and so on.
For it to be moral, it has to satisfy being moral from every point of view, not just the poitn of view I happen to be in at the moment.
And this means that sometimes, society has to be able to tell individuals what to do and what they can’t do. Outlawing theft being a simple example.
Libertarians will agree to outlaw theft and physical violence, but they fail to see that two individuals, acting for their individual self interest, will sometimes end up with a result much worse than if society can create regulations up front.
The prisoner’s dillemma being the common example. Tragedy of the commons being another. Both show how two individuals, acting in their self interest can bring about a result that is far worse for themselves and everyone, than if regulation were to be put in place.
Simplest example is FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Regulation created by the government after self-feeding panic created runs on banks that in part caused the Great Depression. I think banks should be required to pay into FDIC to prevent these kinds of runs on banks in teh future. But if I were a selfish bank, I could save money if I dind’t pay FDIC, and undercut my competitors. So I won’t CHOOSE to pay FDIC. And me, as a customer, would rather go to the bank that lowers its fees and pays higher interest because that bank isn’t paying into FDIC. So me as a selfish customer, don’t want FDIC either. But if no one has FDIC, bank runs can occur. So you have to make it a *mandatory* regulation.
Individuals freely choosing only what is in their self interest will create situation that put all of society in peril. Uninsured banks being one example.
“Duty to rescue laws, thumbs up or down?”
Thumbs down. And I say that as someone who was certified as an EMT many, many years ago. If you’re a doctor or paramedic or emt, then you should render aid as your training dictates. As a medical professional, you shouldn’t ignore someone who is dying just because you don’t feel like it or because you don’t like the other person’s politics or religion. But random person on teh street, no. Most random people off the street don’t know what to do, and don’t know how to help safely. A lot of EMT training was stressing the importance of NOT rushing in before making sure the scene is safe. Otherwise, you end up being another patient they have to deal with in addition to teh one already there.
Drachefly | 19-Apr-12 at 10:10 am | Permalink
Going back to the scalzithread – “it DOES require that the person essentially commit the fallacy of reification, that “life” is some physical objective thing, without any regard for the subjective experience.”
One can make definitions of life that would be amenable to physical objective measurement, and that would easily encompass all people with subjective experiences.
“From a strictly rational perspective, the *least* arbitrary line I can think of that can be drawn between “human being” and “non-human being” is the moment of fertilization, when you have an individual human organism with that which distinguishes every human from another: 46 chromosomes consisting of a unique genetic code equally derived from equally from each of its parents.”
First off, being least arbitrary is a finite advantage that can be overcome by other factors. Second, That may not even be the least arbitrary.
After all, why restrict to ‘human’? Do only humans have moral weight? Does the suffering of animals mean nothing at all? What do we do if we encounter sapient aliens, or build artificial general intelligences with desires?
Chances are pretty good you assign *some* weight to animal suffering, would an equal share to sapient aliens. You could also assign moral weight to such AI. I’ll suppose that’s the case so I can continue.
What rule led you to that? It’s a pretty good chance it boils down to the presence of cognition.
Drachefly | 19-Apr-12 at 10:13 am | Permalink
Also, Greg, your page keeps trying to redirect me to some sweepstakes site.
Amitava D. | 19-Apr-12 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
Firstly, to Drachefly: “After all, why restrict to ‘human’? Do only humans have moral weight? Does the suffering of animals mean nothing at all?”
Ah, animal rights! This gets interesting. For all practical purposes, “rights” are whatever we, as a society, determine them to be. I personally don’t go by cognition; for me it’s either “human” or “non-human”. Rights can only exist concomitantly with responsibility, something that no other creature I’m aware of is capable of assuming. We can of course certainly choose to grant animals rights, although in general I am suspicious of doing so since it’s almost always based on sentiment rather than reason, and inconsistently applied. Consider, by way of example: if I shoot a dog or a horse in the head, chances are I might be written up on animal cruelty. Do it to a cow or a pig, though? (The latter which is likely the most intelligent of all, BTW). Why that’s just animal husbandry, and all in a day’s work!
Greg: Thanks for the TED link! I remember seeing a lecture there once before, I want to say on architecture, but I’m not too sure.
“you just changed your measure from chromosomes to “organism” versus “part of an organism”.”
Well, no. If you read back to my original post in Mr. Scalzi’s blog, you’ll see that I specifically based the dividing line on “when you have an individual human organism” (which was in turn based upon chromosomes).
“That argument would require that no doctor would be able to follow any person’s living will to not put them on life support if there was no chance of recovery, because, hey, how do we know what their *subjective* experience is, right?”
I’m not sure how that follows. Abortion is a positive action, desisting from placing someone on life support is not. There’s a sharp distinction between killing someone and allowing them to die. I think it would be more analagous to say that a doctor would *be allowed* to unilaterally terminate a patient’s life support because he or she determined that they had no worthwhile subjective life experience.
“A fertilized egg has no subjective experience. Has no experience of pain or happiness or hunger or joy. It has no history of a subjective experience…A fertilized egg has no more subjective experience than a single red blood cell.”
Perhaps not, but one is an individual human organism, the other is not. But is the ability to feel pain what you suggest to use as a metric? Anencephalic infants with the misfortune of being born alive are almost always bereft of the ability to feel pain (or really anything, for that matter). And yet we as a society do not allow them to be smothered or drowned or shoot them up with potassium chloride. Would you not consider that murder? (Incidentally, you might find intriguing the case of Baby K, one such baby who was kept alive for an unheard of several months in such a state.)
“Individual interest and societal interests are not the same.” Not always, no. But you take it for granted that an individual can only exist as a unit in a larger whole, that to live is to inherently be a part of a society. That’s an assumption I don’t share. It may be true for most people (it certainly is for me), but should one have the means and wherewithal to live independently of the larger system, then the only power which a government may legitimately assume (cue your eyeroll) is to keep that person from hurting other people. They cannot be forced to help another person, or be prevented from harming themselves.
“For it to be moral, it has to satisfy being moral from every point of view”
Do you really think you’d be able to find such a position?
You often bring up tragedy of the commons and prisoners’ dilemma in these discussions. But I wonder that there’s less conflict than one might suppose (for example regulating air pollution, something you’ve mentioned before, is something on which I agree with you. Unless you’re somehow able to contain the smoke from your burning leaves to the air over your property, then that’s an action that is affecting other folks without their consent.
“And me, as a customer, would rather go to the bank that lowers its fees and pays higher interest because that bank isn’t paying into FDIC. So me as a selfish customer, don’t want FDIC either.”
I find that hard to believe. I know you’re using a conceptual “you”, but you, Greg-whatever-your-surname-is, don’t strike me as unintelligent, foolhardy or shortsighted. Were FDIC an optional system, wouldn’t you still choose to deposit at a (slightly more expensive) FDIC-backed institution? I know I would. So would many others. But if someone wants to assume a greater risk by banking at a non-insured institution with a lower interest rate, who am I to stop them? Their bank will be the one liable to collapse, and if it’s an institution that’s prone to such risk-taking, then I’d argue that would be a good thing.
Amitava D. | 19-Apr-12 at 4:11 pm | Permalink
Oh yes, viz-a-viz the normal flora: as you stated, the symbiotic relationship many of them offer may be integral to our well being, and they may live within the human body, but they don’t comprise a part of the body itself. If you’ve ever had a colonoscopy, the bowel irrigation to which you were subjected beforehand would have cleaned out a considerable portion of that flora, but I wouldn’t make the argument that you lost any tissue (at least I’d hope not).
Greg | 19-Apr-12 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
Drachefly: “Also, Greg, your page keeps trying to redirect me to some sweepstakes site.”
I… I have no idea what that is. It doesn’t happen to me, but I’m on Ubuntu/firefox. Are you seeing anything like that Amitava?
Greg | 19-Apr-12 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
Amitava: “I’m not sure how that follows. Abortion is a positive action, desisting from placing someone on life support is not. There’s a sharp distinction between killing someone and allowing them to die.”
You do realize that people who are in vegative states might be able to breathe on their own and the way they die is they starve to death, yes? I question just how “passive” it is to let someone starve to death over the course of a couple weeks.
I think we ought to have a right to die, and be able to do so in an active manner with pain killers and whatever it takes, if the situation merits it and that’s what the individual chose. As it is, we call a feeding tube “life support” and that’s the only way we can legally honor someone’s living will.
Greg: A fertilized egg has no more subjective experience than a single red blood cell.”
Amitava: “Perhaps not, but one is an individual human organism, the other is not.”
That’s tautological. It isn’t “human” except that you said so. I don’t think its human.
“But is the ability to feel pain what you suggest to use as a metric?”
I keep saying the subjective experience is the metric, and that includes consciousness, awareness, recognition, memory, responsiveness, pain, and a whole slew of other metrics.
And yes, that makes it a messy definition, because the definition itself is subjective. But to throw that out and choose the “least arbitrary” simply to avoid that mess, doesn’t justify it as the *right* thing to do, only the “least arbitrary” definition to chose.
I’m perfectly fine with a level of subjectiveness being present in our democratic process. Subjectiveness allows for bad outcomes to occur, but our constitutional democracy as it is today is far, far, and away better than the sort of world we would have if people had to jetison their subjective experience of what is right and wrong, of what it means to be human, and come up with purely mechanical laws like “a fertilized egg is human simply because we can find no other definition that doesn’t require some subjective interpretation”.
Amitava: “Anencephalic infants”
Quoting Wikipedia: The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) describes the presentation of this condition as follows: “A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness, reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur.”
This describes pretty much Terri Schiavo’s state when she died. Half of her brain had atrophied by the time she died. I think she breathed on her own, and she had reflex actions, but those are functions more of the brain stem than of consciousness.
You know that in some states, you don’t need a living will, your spouse can make medical decisions for you? such as take you off life support? Which in some states includes a feeding tube?
Again, I think we ought to support some sort of “right to die” idea for people like Terri who have so much brain damage that they enter a vegetative state and have no hope of ever recovering. If they have a living will that says they would not want to be maintained in that condition, then they ought to be able to have pain medications administered, render any brain activity into cessation, and have some means of causing the heart to stop beating.
Terri died a long time before her body was finally put to rest.
I’ve had people very close to me tell me that their worst nightmare would be to be trapped in a vegatative state like Terri and be forced to live for decades like that. I think we should be able to honor their wishes if it came to that.
“Would you not consider that murder?”
Even if we did allow a “right to die”, in the case of anencephaly, it would be up to the parents, not the state. In the case of Terri Schiavo, it was a matter of the next of kin, her husband, to decide. It only because a circus when the state decided to intervene based off of some weird sense of righteousness that had nothing to do with Terri’s wishes.
Which is to say, allowing subjective definitions can allow people to abuse it the way they tried to use the state to impose their will on Terri Schiavo’s wishes. But better that, than to say subjectivity is too dangerous, we must find a wholly non-arbitrary definition.
“the case of Baby K, one such baby who was kept alive for an unheard of several months ”
Alive, but never conscious. Care would be up to the parents, but whatever the parents chose, Baby K was never conscious.
(break)
Greg | 19-Apr-12 at 6:46 pm | Permalink
Amitava: “But you take it for granted that an individual can only exist as a unit in a larger whole, that to live is to inherently be a part of a society.”
Libertarians take for granted that there is no such thing as society. That is an assertion with no evidence.
I do not take for granted that even the Unabomber living in a shack in the woods gained benefit from society at large. The fact that society existed around him such that he benefitted from not having to personally fend off foreign invasion, that he did not have to fend off roving bands of thieves, and so on.
This is called the “free rider” problem. If everyone pitches in to pay for police, then someone could try to justify NOT paying for police, but still get the benefit of having police, then they become a free rider. Libertarians almost always (not saying you specifically are, but that they do in general) argue to be free riders in an existing society.
The argument sounds osmething like this: Society can chip in together to have a police force, have regulation, have all the benefits that they have, but, argues the libertarian, just let me have my freedom, let me “opt out” of all your regulations that have no real “moral standing”. Everyone ELSE can opt in voluntarily, but I should be able to be a free rider.
If we take the tragedy of the commons to its libertarian (i.e. no society) end, it really does end in TRAGEDY. The only reason it does NOT end in tragedy is because people realize they have to limit THEMSELVES and EVERYONE ELSE *equally*. They *regulate* the commons.
Amitava: “Were FDIC an optional system, wouldn’t you still choose to deposit at a (slightly more expensive) FDIC-backed institution? I know I would. So would many others. But if someone wants to assume a greater risk by banking at a non-insured institution with a lower interest rate, who am I to stop them?”
Because you and they are all part of the same *society*. You and they are all part of the same *economy*.
This is where libertarians fail. They think an individual can be his own economy. And they think somehow that if someone is an idiot and puts their money in an uninsured bank, and that bank fails, and everyone in that bank loses their money, the libertarian will *swear* that it won’t affect them. That those people are somehow in a *different* *economy* than the libertarian is in.
It doesn’t work that way.
We are individuals. AND we are connected in various ways as a society. And libertarians pretend those connections do not exist. They say things like “Society does not exist”.
In the case of FDIC, making FDIC optional creates a race to the bottom for society, with absolutely no benefit for society. The benefit to the individual is short term gain, profit for the bank and better rates for the customer, but those short term gains are wiped out if a bank run occurs. And if a bank run occurs, the gains are wiped out for those individuals AND for society.
So society regulates.
You want another example of society regulating itself and individuals? Corporations. You want to invest money in a business venture? Go for it. If they go under, you’re part owner, so you’re liable for any debts the business had. So debt collectors can go after the business owner’s personal money.
THe problem with that was that people would generally not INVEST in a business, because they could become liable for far more than they ever put into the company. Generally, the only way people would put money into a business was if they CONTROLLED teh company and got to make the decisions for the company. i.e. they owned it.
But not being able to get people to invest in your business venture meant you were limited in the amount of money your business could raise, would limit the size your business could grow to, would limit what your business could do.
This was the way it worked until the invention of the limited liability corporation.
From a societal poitn of view, having people be liable for all debts of a business results in no one investing in new business (except for the people who OWN and CONTROL the business). So, a government regulation was created. It said that you as an individual could invest money in a corporation, and your liability to that corporation would be limited to that investment. You could lose, at most, all the money you put into the corporation. ANy of your personal assets were untouchable to debt collectors and such.
This is an idea that can only be handled at a societal level. You can’t impliement the idea of a corporation at a “contractual” level, at the level of “individuals”. It has to be societal level regulation. If you invest in a corporation, your personal assets are off limits, and your liability is limited to the money you invested.
The limited liability corporation was a societal regulation that solved a Prisoner’s Dilemma problem of people’s personal assets being up for grabs if the business they invested in went under.
It is a strategic move.
If you don’t like society as a whole regulating individuals, then you should forgo teh limited liability corporation as a concept, and you should surrender any benefit you gain from the existence of Corporations. (hint, you can’t)
Libertarians pick and chose which regulations they oppose. And conveniently, they oppose regulations that hinder their selfish interests, but they are perfectly fine with societal regulations that help their selfish interests.
They oppose something like FDIC being mandatory, but they have no problem with society as a whole creating the concept of a Limited Liability Corporation to solve a prisoner’s dilemma problem.
Without Corporations, inviduals don’t invest, adn society doesn’t get the benefit of captialism. With corporations, individuals get the benefit of potential investments and society gets the benefit of a capitalist engine driving their economy.
Greg | 19-Apr-12 at 6:49 pm | Permalink
Amitava: “Their bank will be the one liable to collapse, and if it’s an institution that’s prone to such risk-taking, then I’d argue that would be a good thing.”
The latest crash was a result of, in part, certain individuals being riskier than the economy as a whole could handle.
This is the libertarian fallacy that an individual is his own economy.
Amitava D. | 20-Apr-12 at 4:23 am | Permalink
Hmm, I’m not getting redirected to any other website, sweepstakes or otherwise.
“I question just how “passive” it is to let someone starve to death over the course of a couple weeks.”
Unless if you’ve done something to keep them in confinement against their will, you’re still not killing them. I also support a right to die (you know in India if you attempt suicide, you can actually be imprisoned?), although I’m very cautious as to the extent to which we should allow physicians or other health care workers to be involved in the process.
“It isn’t “human” except that you said so. I don’t think its human.”
Hmm. I don’t presume to dictate your beliefs, but perhaps you mean “person” (which is what this famously boils down to, usually). Is not human an objective term, like dog, mammal, or chordate?
“But to throw that out and choose the “least arbitrary” simply to avoid that mess, doesn’t justify it as the *right* thing to do”
I’m not simply trying to avoid the mess (although I admit that my support of letting states decide their own policies in this *is* a way of at least minimizing the mess, so to speak). I sincerely believe that laws must be based upon logic and reason in order to be just. Gut instinct can be a fine thing; it can also quite nicely lead to sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, religious intolerance, and all their related kin. Try debating LGBT rights with a religious conservative who hasn’t personally known anyone gay, and you’ll quickly discover this.
“a fertilized egg is human simply because we can find no other definition that doesn’t require some subjective interpretation”.
Again, I try and base my position on rationality, although it’s not to the exclusion of my subjective feelings.
Re: Terri Schiavo and Baby K. Again, there is the crucial distinction between “letting die” and “killing”. In both vegetative states and anencephaly (or other birth defects of similar severity), the state doesn’t sanction smothering them with a pillow, or giving them a lethal injection. So let me make a distinction, then. For the sake of discussion, let’s leave aside the issue of a mother/parent’s obligation to their children. If a pregnancy could be terminated by the removal of the fetus and placenta from the uterine cavity (ie, without actively killing the organism), which were then allowed to die, I would have less objection.
Were you to ask my personal opinion on the endgame with abortion, I’d bet that the day we have a working artificial uterus will go a great deal towards the resolution of this issue.
You know I realize, looking at my timeposts, that you must be somewhere out on the West Coast?(or should I say *left* coast, hardeeharhar) I fully intend to respond to your second post, but for the moment, alas, I must go to work
But hey, Friday!
Amitava D. | 20-Apr-12 at 4:26 am | Permalink
Actually, just where the heck are you? Hawaii?
Greg | 20-Apr-12 at 6:18 am | Permalink
Greg: “I question just how “passive” it is to let someone starve to death over the course of a couple weeks.”
Amitava: “Unless if you’ve done something to keep them in confinement against their will,”
Um, they’re in a vegatative state and will never gain consciousness. “against their will” becomes meaningless at this point.
Amitava: “I sincerely believe that laws must be based upon logic and reason in order to be just. Gut instinct can be a fine thing….”
I think if you keep implying that acknowledging the subjective is illogical and/or unreasonable, or that it is no different than an unthinking “gut instinct”, then we should probably just stop now.
“Again, I try and base my position on rationality”
Again, if you insist on this rhetorical approach, we can stop right now.
“the state doesn’t sanction smothering them with a pillow, or giving them a lethal injection.”
For someone who keeps talking about being “rational” and who keeps dismissing the subjective experience, your arguments have an interesting tendency to dive right down into the most emotive language possible.
for example “smother with a pillow” is patently ridiculous because no one is suggesting either passive or active euthenasia resort to that. But it has a great emotional tug to it, doesn’t it?
I don’t have a problem with you bringing in your own subjective experience. In fact I think we *must* acknowledge it to find any morality. Without the subjective experience, we are just machines, and there is no morality among machines. But you keep trying to dismiss any reference to the subjective experience as illogical and irrational, and yet, your arguments commonly cite extremely emotive language, i.e. they’re subjective.
The problem I’m having is you’re bringing in your subjective experience, but you seem to think you’re reporting something that qualifies as fact or logic or rationality.
So, we’re at a bit of an impasse.
Imagine if we were discussing a movie, and you started to say that the movie was “bad” as if it were some objectively measurable concept. If you don’t like the movie, that’s part of your subjective experience, something about YOU. It doesn’t say anything objective about the movie itself.
But then if you relate to the movie being “bad” as if it were “fact”, as if it were the “rational” and “logical” truth about the movie, that makes it impossible for you to be able to hear anything I say about me liking the movie.
I might try to couch my review in terms of “My experience of the movie was that I laughed and cried and was really pulled into the characters. I liked it”. But you don’t have any space for that view, because you’ve collapsed your subjective opinion about the movie into “fact”.
Again, I don’t have a problem you bringing your subjectiveness into the discussion. But you don’t seem to realize that it’s your subjective experience when you present it as if you’re being “logical” and “rational”, which also implies that I’m NOT being logical or rational.
Amitava D. | 20-Apr-12 at 12:55 pm | Permalink
Greg: please to allow me, if you will, to respond at length at some point this weekend?
Greg | 21-Apr-12 at 4:18 am | Permalink
Amitava, sure. No worries.
Drachefly, I just noticed that when I look at the website on my droid, i get redirected to a sweepstakes site. And I’m no webguru, so I’m not sure what the problem is or how to fix it. Do you get redirected on a desktop and mobile or just mobile or just desktop?
Drachefly | 21-Apr-12 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
> and there is no morality among machines.
Well, not yet.
Amitava, I don’t mean to help Greg overwhelm you, but I think you responded to the least interesting part of my post, and in a marginally relevant way. Yes, some animals we kill on a daily basis. Is it just _icky_ or is it actually _immoral_ to torture an animal? Say, giving chimps cigarette burns, flaying dolphins, waterboarding pigs?
I’d hazard that you’d say yes. If you don’t, substitute aliens.
If you agree, is it cognition that impels you to say so? If you don’t… I want to be as causally disconnected from you as possible, really.
Greg | 22-Apr-12 at 5:58 am | Permalink
Greg: “and there is no morality among machines.”
Drachefly: “Well, not yet.”
When machines achieve consciousness, then we can revisit this assertion.
As for animals, I grew up on a farm and while the end result was steak and ham, we didn’t torture them to get to that point. Once in a while, we had to euthanize an animal because it was sick, injured, or born deformed. And I dont eat veal or foi gras because what they do to the animal to get it.
The point being that animals have consciousness so I try to have some respect for that consciousness.
There’s nothing inherently special about cells that happen to have 23 human chromosome pairs in them. In fact, saying that 23 chromosomes is what makes us special is its own form of logical bootstrapping. An unproven premise.
The reason WHY humans are different than inanimate matter is because of our subjective experience, our consciousness, and how many chromosomes we have is irrelevant. It’s that consciousness that gives us a right to live, to be free, and to be happy. The chromosomes are merely one specific implementation to achieve consciousness. If we ever discover intelligent life on another planet, we’ll see that 23 chromosomes has absolutely nothing to do with “rights” and that it comes down to consciousness.
Drachefly | 22-Apr-12 at 11:42 am | Permalink
Yes, that was what I was getting at, and why I clarified to torture.
Amitava D. | 26-Apr-12 at 6:59 pm | Permalink
Greg,
My abject apologies for delaying so long in my response; I’m currently in the process of transitioning between jobs and moving to a different state (and fixing to get my tonsils removed tomorrow; fun!), so if you’re still reading this, know that I should very much like to continue the conversation, should you be so inclined.
Greg | 28-Apr-12 at 11:21 pm | Permalink
Amitava, no worries. Good luck with the tonsils. Good excuse to eat ice cream, I hear.
Amitava D. | 01-May-12 at 6:25 pm | Permalink
Greg you have been a more than gracious host. I appreciate your well wishes, and shall now endeavour to offer a considerably belated response to your last post, assuming anyone is still even following this.
I see how one might find my insistence on characterizing my thought process as being based on ‘rationality’ might come across as smug and offensive; might I offer “objectivity” instead as what I seek as a defining parameter? (And no, I’m not an Ayn Rand acolyte, believe it or not).
“For someone who keeps talking about being “rational” and who keeps dismissing the subjective experience, your arguments have an interesting tendency to dive right down into the most emotive language possible.”
Quite interesting indeed, considering that I try to right as dispassionately as possible. In any event what I was (am) trying to illustrate is the distinction between actively killing someone vs letting someone die. If you can think of an example of the former that’s less emotive and dramatic, by all means substitute it. Which actually brings up another interesting point, by which I make note of your reference to “active or passive euthanasia”. I’m not sure I even subscribe to the latter being possible.
I also find quite interesting the fact that your opposition to duty to rescue laws appears to be predicated on a utilitarian, versus deontological, perspective.
” Yes, some animals we kill on a daily basis. Is it just _icky_ or is it actually _immoral_ to torture an animal? Say, giving chimps cigarette burns, flaying dolphins, waterboarding pigs?”
Drachefly:
Morality is inherently a subjective thing (and at this point I’d like to point out that I don’t consider myself a moral relativist). The examples you give strike me as a bit capricious (that’s not intended condescendingly, btw), and in situations such as these I would think behaviour such as you describe would be indicative of a serious underlying defect in the perpetrators’ psychology. To use a more real-world example, how about the cultivation of fois gras? I suppose you might find it immoral, as many people do. But even though I don’t eat it (I’m actually vegetarian), I don’t feel I have the right to prevent others from doing so. Because any man-made laws that pass beyond the human realm are inherently arbitrary; therefore I find them as having less “truth value” if you will.
Anyway, sorry if my responses seem rambling, between the earache and the lortab my thoughts are probably wandering.
Greg | 01-May-12 at 10:27 pm | Permalink
Amitava: “Quite interesting indeed, considering that I try to right as dispassionately as possible.”
We are not computers, Sebastian.
It is useful to try and find logical explanations for our sense of moral right and wrong. It is helpful to try and put them into mathematical terms so we can see whether they add up. For example, using math, we could see that simply fining a corporation a million dollars for something it did that saved it a hundred million dollars is pointless if we think the thing they did is wrong.
The point is that you can’t be totally “dispassionate”. You have to bring in the subjective experience of living. You have to bring in your own personal moral compass. And there’s nothing to tell you that your needle points in the right direction.
It’s clear to me that you’re bringing in your subjective experience around abortion and euthanasia. The thing is, it doesn’t seem clear to you. You’re invoking highly emotive language, and yet you say you’re trying to be “dispassionate”. I was pointing it out so that perhaps you might recognize some personal feelings you’re bringing into the conversation, some subjective opinions.
Until you can see that you’re bringing in your subjective reasoning, I’m not sure what value there is discussing the morality of abortion when you think you’re being entirely “dispassionate” and I’m reacting on little more than “gut instinct”.
My point is that we are both relating to this moral conundrum in part based on “gut instinct”. I try to acknowlege mine and try to come up with logical reasons that has the math line up with the moral compass. But you’ve not yet been willing to acknowledge that you’re bringing your own “gut instinct” to the party.
That is problematic.
Because, fundamentally, the reason we are at an impasse about abortion is because you’re not acknowledging that, for example, a single cell fertilized egg does not have consciousness, does not have the subjective experience.
It’s got the right number of chromosomes, and that mechanical definition is all that matters to you. You can’t seem to acknowledge that a single cell fertilized egg is in fact not conscious in any way, has no subjective experience of any kind, cannot experience pain or pleasure, has no wants or desires, has no fears, has no feelings at all. Meanwhile, you’re bringing in your subjective experience into the topic, but saying you’re trying to be as “dispassionate” as possible.
You can’t be entirely dispassionate. Because we’re not machines, Sebastian.
“also find quite interesting the fact that your opposition to duty to rescue laws appears to be predicated on a utilitarian, versus deontological, perspective.”
The idea of “duty” is a subjective response again.
To some extent, the notion of “duty” can be shown to fit within the rationality of mathematics. We as a people can decide to levy taxes and use them to pay for police, fire departments, road service, and so on. Some might simply say we have a “duty” to pay taxes, but I think the morality of it can be shown to fit within the bottom line of math and money: We get goods and services from the government that we should pay for. And this includes government services that others need that I benefit from them getting those services, even if I don’t get those services directly. I benefit from FDIC even if I never collect money from the government due to my bank crashing.
The nation, the economy, society as a whole, all benefit from children getting a good education. I benefit from everyone getting a good education. And even if I don’t have children, I benefit from everyone else’s child being educated, so it makes sense that I help support public education.
Not every regulation is a net gain. And at the same time, not every laisez faire approach is a net gain either. One needs to have a tally of the whole thing to tell whether it makes sense to regulate it or not.
With “duty to rescue” laws, well, the problem is in part that “duty” isn’t actually proven to exist. And the math and history show that random people off the street often get themselves into more trouble trying to help. And given that for the most part, trained EMTs and paramedics and such are just a phone call away, creating a “duty to rescue” law needlessly causes untrained people to endanger themselves, and isnt justified.
Amitava: “The examples you give strike me as a bit capricious”
Dude, have you ever been to an animal shelter? Seriously? There are some sick human beings out there who like to torture animals.
“fois gras? I suppose you might find it immoral, as many people do. But even though I don’t eat it (I’m actually vegetarian), I don’t feel I have the right to prevent others from doing so.”
Humans eat sannakji (octopus), ikizukuri (fish), “drunken” shrimp, and frogs, while the animals are still alive. You don’t think we could find a moral conundrum where even you would say, no, that’s too much? Eating a fish while it’s still flopping around?
We also regulate and outlaw the killing of animals that are near extinction. Don’t think you have a right to prevent that? In the 1950′s they estimate there were less than 500 mating pairs of bald eagles in the US. Should we let a few hunters wipe them out?
“Because any man-made laws that pass beyond the human realm are inherently arbitrary”
This has so many assumptions packed into it that I don’t even know where to begin. Even the laws you approve of? They’re have some arbitrariness to them. it is only through due process that they have a chance of eventually getting weeded out.
This is what drives me insane about libertarians: They think that every law and every regulation they support is somehow 100% grounded in moral, rational, logical, objective, dispassionate, reason, and any law that they DON”T support must be capricious, illogical, subjective, irrational, and little more than “gut instinct”.
What they’re doing is no different than anyone else is doing: they’re relying on their internal subjective moral compass and cross referencing that with reality, history, and logic to come up with what they think should be the law.
THe only difference is I can count on a libertarian to think their opinion is not arbitrary, but anyone who disagrees with them IS being arbitrary.
Libertarians most commonly have a certainty about them that is maddening, because that certainty turns their beliefs into dogma that never need be questioned.
I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that my morality is based on the subjective idea that there must be some sort of consciousness to be considered a person. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that this is completely arbitrary rule that I made up. And yet, I am willing to hold to that rule as one of the guiding principles of my moral compass.
Libertarians never think their rules are arbitrary. They never think that their rules are something that *they* use as a guiding principle for *their* moral compass. They never think its something THEY INVENTED. Rather they think they’ve latched onto some *external*, absolute, objective, truth about the universe.
And it gives them a kind of certainty that makes it damn near impossible for them to look at the FACT that their morality is in fact just as arbitrary as anyone else. It’s totally subjective for you to say that you have no right to tell someone else what to eat or not eat. It’s no more and no less arbitrary than if I say we ought to prevent people from eating bald eagles because they were endangered or that we should outlaw the practice of eating an animal while its alive because it needlessly inflicts pain.
It’s ARBITRARY in that you said it is moral. Which is no less arbitrary than if I said something else is moral. Ultimately, all morality comes from our internal moral compass. We can use logic and reason and math and history and sociology to try to make sure our arbitrary morality actually, you know, *works* in the long run. But your morality comes from the same place my morality comes from: inside.
Libertarians think they’ve latched onto some external source of morality. They’ll call it “freedom” or something like that. But its an arbitrary decision that they decided that their freedom is more important that the health and well being of society in general. ARBITRARY.
Just like my morality is arbitrary when I say that some level of consciousness needs to be present to be considered a person with rights. I’m perfectly willing to say that its arbitrary. But I’m also perfectly willing to STAND UP FOR MY MORALITY.
Libertarians will stand up for their view of morality, but they won’t acknowledge that its just as arbitrary as anyone else. They think they found some external measure or right and wrong. ANd it gives them a level of “certainty” that reminds me of dogmatic religious notions ideas of morality. When some external “God” tells us what right and wrong is, and the God is held to be infinite, all knowing, all powerful, and wise, then it sort of makes it hard to get someoen who believes that religion, it makes it hard to get that follower to consider that maybe his views on abortion, or same sex marriage, or capital punishment, might actually be… wrong.
You said “man-made laws that pass beyond the human realm are inherently arbitrary”
This assumes that YOUR laws, the laws that YOU support, are somehow NOT arbitrary. You follow the rule to “maximize freedom”? Yeah? That’s completely arbitrary. That’s YOUR rule. That isn’t anything you can get from an external source. Whatever rules YOU abide by are YOUR rules. Whatever direction your moral compass points is YOUR compass. It is YOUR morality. ANd it is just as arbitrary or not-arbitrary as MY morality, as MY moral compass.
If my moral compass is “gut instinct”, then fundamentally, SO IS YOURS.
But for you to keep portraying the source of your morality as logical, objective, rational, dispassionate, and the source of anyone else’s morality as arbitrary, subjective, “gut instinct”, directly points to the source of our current impasse.
Amitava D. | 02-May-12 at 7:31 am | Permalink
Ah, so fast in your response, when I’ve delayed for weeks in making mine! Anyway…
Which ties into the ideas of non-aggression, “voluntaryism”, and (as you’d probably predict) the idea that a government’s responsibility should be relegated to the sphere of keeping people from hurting themselves.
“You’re invoking highly emotive language, and yet you say you’re trying to be “dispassionate”. ”
I should like to make one minor quibble if I may, if by emotive language you’re referring to the examples I gave of actively killing someone (shooting, lethal injection, etc). Really, can you think of any example that you would find less emotive or dramatic? I can’t do anything but ask you to take my word on this, but honestly I wasn’t trying to tug on your heart strings there, I was trying to illustrate what I see to be a sharp distinction.
You might be interested to know that abortion doesn’t really bother me a whole lot on an emotional level. I actually witnessed one being done during my third year of med school, and if there were any part of it that were to have made an impression it was the rather obviously stressed state of the patient during the procedure (as an aside, that’s yet another quibble I have with many pro-lifers when they make reference to people seeking abortion “casually”). Additionally I’ve seen suffering in places like India that likely outweighs whatever it was that the fetus went through. On the other hand, looking at an 11 week old fetus, with such obvious features as hands and a face, I feel compelled to state that this was the destruction of an individual human organism. And my viewpoint then, I guess, is that if this is something you (generic) want legalized, fine, but don’t tell me it’s something that it’s not.
I’m not entirely opposed to physician-assisted suicide, either (while admitting there’s considerable leeway in defining “physician-assisted”). Although I’m not sure I would consider the death of one such as Terry Schiavo as being “euthanasia”.
“The idea of “duty” is a subjective response again.”
This is something that cuts to the ethical/moral heart of the issue (more on that in a minute), to my mind. On all such things as you might describe (taxes, FDIC, etc) I would ask should individuals be compelled to take part in these because
a) they draw a benefit from them and therefore ought to contribute to them, or
b) because they have an innate responsibility to help their fellow man?
The first is something that I accept, the second I do not. Which is why I used the example of duty to rescue laws.
Where this is eventually going to lead probably is the idea of “voluntariness”, something we’ve discussed before methinks.
To touch on animal rights: when I said “capricious” I wasn’t referring to Drachefly’s use of those examples, I was referring to the behaviors he was describing. Which is not to question their occurrence, mind you. My point was that we as a society might have a legitimate concern because capricious cruelty to animals is something that is usually indicative of a greater underlying problem (it, along with pyromania and bed-wetting, is one of the sine qua non’s of what we consider sociopathy, for example). But leaving that aside and barring that in its’ own right? Well:
“Humans eat sannakji (octopus), ikizukuri (fish), “drunken” shrimp, and frogs, while the animals are still alive. You don’t think we could find a moral conundrum where even you would say, no, that’s too much? Eating a fish while it’s still flopping around?”
Honestly, no. (What frog dish is that, btw? I’ve heard of the others, crazy nips! (jk!))Because look, if we’re going to have a law it needs to be consistently applied. The argument for banning these things, I guess, is that it’s not necessary to eat an animal alive. But you know what? It’s not necessary to eat animals, period. I’m not trying to plug vegetarianism here, but culling meat from one’s diet is healthy, economical, and environmentally beneficial. As a net aggregate of animal suffering, I can assure you that animal husbandry in the western world inflicts far more stress and pain than the rather esoteric eating habits you describe.
“We also regulate and outlaw the killing of animals that are near extinction. Don’t think you have a right to prevent that?”
Yes. Environmentalism and animal rights are two completely (though not mutually exclusive) things. And I do support environmentalism, because I think it is in the interest of our race to protect the integrity of the biosphere we inhabit.
Libertarianism/arbitrary morality, writ large:
Boy do you pack one heckuva punch, my friend! I’m going to try and get to the meat and bone of the matter…
“This assumes that YOUR laws, the laws that YOU support, are somehow NOT arbitrary. You follow the rule to “maximize freedom”? Yeah? That’s completely arbitrary. That’s YOUR rule. ”
Believe it or not, this is something that I admit. As I mentioned before, any idea of morality is subjectively grounded (and again I’d like to state that I don’t consider myself a moral relativist).
From what I can discern, you appear to base your conception of morality on the question “what increases the net well-being of society (society being something that you take as a given)”?
I base mine on the idea that each person is an autonomous individual before they are part of a collective whole, and may not be compelled to help another person (I remember in one of our past debates on Mr. Scalzi’s blog, I forget what the topic was, I said rather dramatically “I’d rather a thousand die before a single man is forced against his will to help them”. Really “dispassionate” of me, of course
That is my gut instinct, eh?
Greg | 02-May-12 at 10:06 am | Permalink
yes, it IS your ‘gut instinct’ at least if you wish to label everyone else’s moral compass as nothing more than “gut instinct”, then, so too is your moral compass “gut instict”.
The thing is your choice of words generally convey the impression that you have found some source of absolute right and everyone else is is just going with their gut instinct. No. Sorry. Your moral compass is sourced by your subjective experience. My moral compass is sourced by my subjective experience.
I have not yet gotten the impression that you hold your moral compass on the same level as mine. That you get we both have to come from our own personal subjective notions of right and wrong, and that we both could be wrong about right and wrong.
Fundamentally, this is why I think the state is so important. Most individuals think they are right or at least justified. But disputes between individuals means that at least half of those individuals are living by a moral compass that is more wrong than the other half. It is only through the State that individual morality can be aggregated and be put into a form of due process where we as a people find the right answer.
People arent perfect. The state cant be perfect because people arent perfect. But due process can create a system that as a whole is on the better half of justice.
I freely admit my moral compass is a subjective thing. You seem resistent to admitting it. I freely admit that the fact that I eat meat might be looked at in a couple hundred years the way we look at the fact that the founding Fathers, as good as they were, owned slaves.
You seem reluctant to admit that your views might be shown to morally flawed in the future.
I keep getting the impression that you believe you have found the “right” answer and everyone else is just going from gut instinct.
So every time we discuss some point, I am left with the impression that you’re not actually ever considering your own fallibility. I do. A lot. One of the reasons I am so familiar with the libertarian frame of mind is that I used to hold that point of view. But I started to see flaws in my point of view. I am abundantly clear that I have been wrong in the past and could be wrong right now.
In all these posts you’ve made I get the impression that you hold a certainty that you are right.
Morality is little more than looking inward and questioning what you think you are.
Greg | 02-May-12 at 10:18 am | Permalink
Amitava: ” The argument for banning these things, I guess, is that it’s not necessary to eat an animal alive”
No. That is YOUR moral compass. That is the justification YOU could find.
My reasoning is that there is no need for the animal to suffer in pain while we eat it. Having grown up on a farm raising steers and hogs, my experience was that our animals didnt experience a day to day existence of stress or pain.
That it is “not neccessay” to eat animals is YOUR moral compass pointing you in YOUR direction. It doesnt source my sense of morality AT ALL, because it is not MINE.
The question is whether you could ever recognize that “not neccessary” is in fact sourced by nothing but your subjective experience, and whether you might realize that means that this particular moral heading might actually be wrong.
Amitava D. | 03-May-12 at 6:46 pm | Permalink
“The thing is your choice of words generally convey the impression that you have found some source of absolute right and everyone else is is just going with their gut instinct.”
Huh. I’m sorry to have conveyed that impression, although I do confess myself a bit puzzled as to where or how precisely I might have done so. I will say again that I don’t know if I can accept the idea of there being an “absolute right” (while also saying again that I try not to think of myself as a moral relativist). To go back to the original issue, for example, I don’t believe I ever said that “objectively speaking abortion is murder” (although I did posit that a fetus may objectively be called a human organism, please to note I did not say “person”, which seems to be the crucial distinction amongst legal theorists). As a point of fact the very diversity of thought when it comes to ethics is one of the reasons why I support libertarianism.
“Amitava: ” The argument for banning these things, I guess, is that it’s not necessary to eat an animal alive”
No. That is YOUR moral compass. ”
Well, no. I don’t support banning ikizikuri or other such dishes, even though I wouldn’t eat them myself for a variety of reasons. Perhaps you might appreciate that I was trying to empathize and see the issue through the viewpoint of others who would (support such a ban, that is).
But then you so kindly provided your own viewpoint:
“My reasoning is that there is no need for the animal to suffer in pain while we eat it.”
To which I would respond, for the sake of argument, nor is it necessary to boil crabs and lobsters alive. Would you support a ban against that? (Such bans already exist in certain places). If necessity is benchmark, I might point out that it’s not necessary to wear acid-washed jeans, wear cosmetics, or even eat meat for that matter.
Incidentally, earlier today when I came to your blog I was re-directed to some sort of celebrity scandal-youtube type site, by the looks of it. Don’t know if it was the same sort of thing Drachefly was encountering.
Greg | 04-May-12 at 4:53 pm | Permalink
Greg: “your choice of words generally convey the impression that you have found some source of absolute right and everyone else is is just going with their gut instinct”
Amitava: “I’m sorry to have conveyed that impression, although I do confess myself a bit puzzled as to where or how precisely I might have done so.”
Because you say you’re coming from the point of view that is “least arbitrary”, that everyone else is going by “gut instinct”.
Our moral compass is subjective. It comes from within, not without. Therefore it is ARBITRARY. Therefore it is, in fact, GUT INSTINCT. Yours and mine. Equally arbitrary and equally gut instinct.
That you think your moral compass is NOT doing that but everyone else’s moral compass IS, is what conveyed that impression.
“But then you so kindly provided your own viewpoint:”
Because that’s all there is to do when two people discuss morality, to present their viewpoints. We can’t go out into the world and find an objective definition of right and wrong. So we have to kindly provide our viewpoints.
nor is it necessary to boil crabs and lobsters alive
Notice: I didn’t center my reason on “necessary”. That was a word you introduced. I said the focus of what we allow and don’t allow should be centered on whether the animal goes through a lot of *suffering*.
“If necessity is benchmark”
Hello? Necessity?
“I was trying to empathize and see the issue through the viewpoint of others”
I am TELLING YOU my moral compass is guided by minimizing suffering of everyone, and you brought it back to your measure of whether it is “neccessary”.
If you want to empathize, forget about something being “neccessary” and look at whether the thing causes someone to suffer.
“boil crabs and lobsters alive. Would you support a ban against that?”
I swat flies and mosquitos because I don’t think they have much in the way of consciousness. They’re more organic machine than mind. Probably the same with lobsters.
I would say that the measure is to minimize suffering, not whether it is “neccessary”.
Which goes all the way back to teh question of abortion. A single cell does not have ANY consciousness. it can’t feel anything at all. From a subjective, experiential, consciousness point of view, it is no different than a single red blood cell. Neither can feel, think, or experience anything, let alone pain.
“I was re-directed to some sort of celebrity scandal-youtube type site,”
Were you on a mobile device? Or desktop? I see redirects when I look at the site with my phone. But so far have never seen it with my desktop.
I don’t even know what to do to fix it. I’m already at the latest version of wordpress. Maybe I could try reinstalling it.
Other than that, this stuff is way over my head. Might have to start over with a new website and new installation. Gods that’s a depressing thought.
Amitava D. | 05-May-12 at 6:22 pm | Permalink
“Because you say you’re coming from the point of view that is “least arbitrary””
)
I don’t think I said my POV was itself the “least arbitrary” (as you suggest, can a POV be anything but?), but rather that I base my opinion on “what is a person/abortion’s permissibility” on what seems to me to be the least arbitrary line.
I hope, btw, that you didn’t take my “kindly” to be intended snidely; I assure you it was not (eager as I always am to “know thine enemy”
“They’re more organic machine than mind. Probably the same with lobsters.”
There’s actually some debate as to that,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_crustaceans, to such an extent that places such as “Reggio Emilia, Italy” (according to wiki) have banned such cooking methods.
“Notice: I didn’t center my reason on “necessary”. That was a word you introduced. ”
You didn’t say “necessary”, it is true, but you did say:
“My reasoning is that there is no need for the animal to suffer in pain while we eat it”…”no need”, so perhaps you can forgive me if the crux of your thoughts on the matter lay on necessity?
Would I be correct in assuming, then, that you oppose animal testing? Or that all the meat you but is from certified free-range producers who ensure that their animals are killed humanely? Are there even such products? (That’s a genuine question, btw, I haven’t bought meat in quite some time).
So out of curiosity, where precisely DO your thoughts lie on abortion? Do you support any restrictions upon it? Should it be permissible so long as the fetus is within the woman? Til it’s viable? Has a heart, or a brain?
That redirect came when I was on my mom’s desktop, which was the first time I had used it to come here; it was also the only time it happened, so I wouldn’t advise you to reinstall anything on that count (while I’d also advise you not to take any advice from me, should it regard computers).
Greg | 05-May-12 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
Would I be correct in assuming, then, that you oppose animal testing?
For cosmetics, yes. For medical research, not as much. The cost/gain factors into it for me. The cost being animals suffering. The gain being the chance of finding a cure for some human disease.
Animals suffering for makeup, doesn’t satisfy the cost/gain equation. if we could find a cure for cancer, it could be worth it.
Or that all the meat you but is from certified free-range producers who ensure that their animals are killed humanely?
I eat hamburger, steaks, ham, turkey, and chicken. I don’t eat fois gras or veal, as a counter example.
Are there even such products?
I don’t think there is anything legally enforced to the level of “free range”. I think there are certain requirements, but farmers have quite a bit of lattitude as do slaughterhouses. I seem to recall that the rules for kosher beef prescribes a particular process for killing the cow, and that process happens to result in a fairly fast and painless death.
our treatment of animals when I was growing up was not entirely free range, but it wasn’t a factory farm either. We had large buildings for the hogs which had space for them to run around in (hogs in a pasture would turn it to mud in a day or two, so no pasture). And the cattle were sometimes in feedlots/barns, and sometimes in pastures.
where precisely DO your thoughts lie on abortion?
I know that a single fertilized cell can’t feel pain and has no subjective consciousness, so I think there should be absolutely no legal restrictions on abortion at the very beginning.
I also get that having a baby is not 100% safe for women. Some of the dangers can be diagnosed for specific conditions with known outcomes (Ectopic pregnancy, for example). But even with no pre-diagnosed issues, pregnancy can be dangerous for the woman.
White women have a mortality rate of 9.5 per 100,000 pregnancies, according the the CDC. For African-American women, that rate is 32.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies.
Compare:
the mortality rate for Alzheimer’s disease was. 24.7 deaths per 100000
Strokes are 50 to 60 per 100,000.
having a baby is a risky endeavor. And I think this gives a woman a moral standing to have an abortion beyond the single cell.
Question for you: What if the pregnancy was the result of rape? Some pro-life people make an exception for cases of rape, but some do not.
Amitava D. | 06-May-12 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
“I eat hamburger, steaks, ham, turkey, and chicken. I don’t eat fois gras or veal, as a counter example.”
Might I suggest that you give “Eating Meat” a try (ha! no pun intended), by JS Foer? This might seriously give you pause in weighing how much animals should suffer that we might enjoy their flesh, at least if you’re opposed to such things as ikizikuri (I’ll say again I’m really not trying to sermonize; my vegetarianism has nothing to do with animal rights, but I did find the book quite provocative).
Allow me to ask you, specifically, about your opinion as to when abortion should or should not be permissible? Everyone draws a line somewhere, even if that line is “inside the woman”.
As to your question: the only circumstance in which I could countenance it being permissible were if the woman were impregnated against her will and the the pregnancy was known to carry a risk to her health.
As an aside, I think this debate will be substantially altered (hopefully resolved, but who knows) when artificial uteri are made practical, and “ending a pregnancy” need not involve “destroying the fetus”. But we’ll see.
Amitava D. | 06-May-12 at 7:06 pm | Permalink
I should have said “so long as it’s inside the woman” for “inside the woman”, I see how that might be confusing.
Greg | 07-May-12 at 7:39 am | Permalink
Amitava: “Allow me to ask you, specifically, about your opinion as to when abortion should or should not be permissible?”
I thought I answered this question.
“Everyone draws a line somewhere”
Well, no. That’s another thing I find libertarians generally do: They have mechanical rules that draw hard-and-fast lines as to what should and should not be permissible.
I don’t draw a line. I draw some “should be OK here” lines and some “probably not ok here” lines, and there’s a whole chunk that I believe can only be answered by the people as a whole (as the state) as to what should and should not be allowed.
Single cell fertilized egg abortion should be allowed. No consciousness whatsoever, no moral conundrum for me. So, of all the abortion methods, the morning after pill should be the least controversial. The complete lack of consciousness can probably cover the first trimester or so.
After that, it’s not as black and white, but rather than say “it must be white or it should not be permissible”, I’m willing to weigh shades of grey. And the fact that pregnancy is dangerous to the mother means the mother has SOME right to have an abortion pretty much at any point.
If some hypothetical situation presented a choice between saving the life of the mother or saving the life of the fetus, then the mother gets to choose.
It is no different than your belief that we should not have “duty to rescue” laws. A woman should not be lawfully required to sacrifice her life for her unborn.
But even beyond the black&white hypothetical situation, pregnancy is a risk, just like rescuing someone in danger is a risk, and even if the odds are that you won’t get injured rescuing someone who fell through the ice, there is still some chance you’ll go through the ice yourself. Even if most women deliver without complications or without dying, the fact is women still die as a result of pregnancy, and I don’t think we can morally bind them to risk their life.
the mortality rate for pregnancy is roughly on par with strokes and alzheimers. I see no moral standing to require women risk their lives like that.
Now, just like when a random bystander sees someone who has fallen through the ice, bystanders often choose to try to do something to help that person. But its their choice to help. It is their choice to risk their own life to save another life.
Similarly, many women choose to take the risk to have children. But its their personal choice, not something that should be mandated by the state.
Just like I believe in the “right to die”. I believe it is something that must be decided by the person who is ill (through a living will) or their immediate next of kin.
It is a personal choice, not something that should be decided by the doctor, the state, or some random person off the street.
“the only circumstance in which I could countenance it being permissible were if the woman were impregnated against her will and the the pregnancy was known to carry a risk to her health.”
Well, first of all, there is always a risk to her health. Thing is, you’ll never take that risk, so it can be easier to require that others actually affected by the risk must take the risk.
Second of all, just to make sure I understood the implication of the boolean “and” in your sentence, if the woman was raped AND her health is at “risk” (for some definition of risk), then you would allow an abortion?
The boolean operator “and” means that BOTH must be true for the entire statement to be true.
So, if the woman was pregnant as a result of being raped but her health was not at “risk” (for some definition of risk), you would say she does not have moral standing to get an abortion.
Likewise, if the woman’s health was at “risk” (for some definition of risk), BUT she did not get pregnant as a result of being raped, you would also say she does not have moral standing to get an abortion.
Just want to make sure I parsed that correctly.
If she was raped AND her life is at risk, then you’d morally support an abortion.
If she was raped but her life is not at risk, you would morally oppose her getting an abortion.
If her life was at risk, but she hadn’t gotten pregnant as a result of rape, you would morally oppose her getting an abortion.
Figure I’ll get clarification before I say anything on that statement.
Greg | 07-May-12 at 7:54 am | Permalink
Amitava: “I think this debate will be substantially altered (hopefully resolved, but who knows) when artificial uteri are made practical,”
Out of curiosity, why do you think artificial uteri would resolve this?
The only reason I can see is that the fact that pregnancies currently take place inside the woman’s body means that the woman has a moral right to have say about her body. And yet, you don’t seem to acknowledge that a woman has any such right. The right of a single cell fertilized egg appears to override any rights of the mother.
So, if the mother has no rights, I don’t understand how moving the pregnancy to an artificial uteri changes the moral equation in any way.
As it is, we already have eggs being fertilized outside the body. Reproductive services do this all the time. And there is still disputes over what should and should not be allowed for reproductive services that happen outside the body. So, I don’t see resolution by getting pregnancies outside the woman’s body.
Not to mention, reproductive services are “practical” in that they’re commonly available, but they’re also hugely expensive, so not a lot of people use that approach. I’m not sure everyone is going to use an artificial uteri if it costs ten times more than natural childbirth costs.
Amitava D. | 07-May-12 at 6:42 pm | Permalink
“I thought I answered this question.”
Ah, pray forgive me, allow me to ask a more specific one: as you have asked me (in a way) when I believe abortion may be permissible, I should like to know if you believe there should be any restrictions placed upon it.
“That’s another thing I find libertarians generally do: They have mechanical rules that draw hard-and-fast lines as to what should and should not be permissible.
I don’t draw a line. I draw some “should be OK here” lines and some “probably not ok here” lines, and there’s a whole chunk that I believe can only be answered by the people as a whole (as the state) as to what should and should not be allowed.”
Ah, come now, it’s something that people do. A line’s still being drawn in that last, only you’re conferring the responsibility to the state. Which is what making laws is all about.
“Single cell fertilized egg abortion should be allowed.”
That’s pretty much the morning after pill, considering that a conceptus exists in a unicellular state for less than a day.
“If some hypothetical situation presented a choice between saving the life of the mother or saving the life of the fetus, then the mother gets to choose.
It is no different than your belief that we should not have “duty to rescue” laws.”
Well there is one key difference. Assume for the sake of argument that a fetus is a person (I know you don’t, but I do, and I’m trying to illustrate why my positions aren’t inconsistent with one another), then generally we as a society allow the rights of individuals to be curtailed when someone else falls under their care and responsibility (eg children in this case). In other words, I don’t have a right to evict someone from my property if I don’t want them there; that doesn’t allow me the right to toss my kids out into the streets cause I’m suddenly tired of them. Duty to rescue laws involve interactions between strangers, or random bystanders as you put it. I don’t think we should be legally obliged to look after the welfare of strangers. Our legal wards, on the other hand, are a different matter entirely.
“If she was raped AND her life is at risk, then you’d morally support an abortion.”
I’m not sure “morally support” is the way I’d put it, but to give you an answer to your question, yes, the criteria must be combinative. I realize there is some inconsistency in making this allowance (if a fetus is a person, then it’s still murder after all), but I can’t fathom any other way around it.
“Out of curiosity, why do you think artificial uteri would resolve this?”
Well, if a pregnancy could be terminated without destroying the fetus, then how could anybody object to abortion anymore? You understand that when I say “artificial uterus”, I mean that the fetus is removed from the woman and grown in vitro, in an external machine of some sort (the artificial uterus) to a state of viability? I’m not referring to the implanting artificial uteri in women, although that’s an intriguing concept in its own right. Of course, this would likely entail its own legal and ethical issues, but the point I’m making is that were such technology practicable I can’t imagine how there would be any further sizable opposition to abortion.
“As it is, we already have eggs being fertilized outside the body. ”
Fertilized, yes, but the conceptus must needs be planted in a surrogate (or the biological) mother for implantation.
“the woman has a moral right to have say about her body. And yet, you don’t seem to acknowledge that a woman has any such right.”
Of course a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, her tissue. The pro-life take is whether she has the right to decide what happens to someone else’s. Kind of “my right to swing my arm ends once it connects with someone else’s nose”. And a fetus may be within her body, it may be connected to her body, but it’s not a piece of her body, in the way that one of her organs or a pint of her blood are. So to go back to your original question; in this hypothetical future scenario, if a woman wants an abortion, fine! Her pregnancy may be terminated by the removal (but not the destruction, that’s the key element that an artificial uterus would solve) of the fetus and, I guess, “half” the placenta (there’s a biological Gordian knot if there ever was one, eh?)
Amitava D. | 07-May-12 at 6:43 pm | Permalink
Oh, one more thing, could you explain “boolean operator” in layman’s terms? I looked it up, and understood what you were asking, but it’s a completely alien term to me. I take it you learned this “computer speak” from building websites?
Greg | 09-May-12 at 10:10 am | Permalink
boolean: logic
if A and B must be true, then the “and” is the boolean operator.
so if I understand correctly, if a woman got pregnant as a result of being raped, AND her life is not immediately threatened by the pregnancy, you grant her no moral grounds to get an abortion.
as for drawing more lines, I dont know enough of the issues to draw any more than I have. single cell fertilized eggs have no consciousness, awareness, feelings, etc so can be aborted without moral
conundrum. This can be extended from one cell to a point as long as consciousness is missing. Beyond that point, there is always the threat of complications to the mother that could endanger her life, so she should always have some say in whether she carries to term or not.
Duty to rescue laws do NOT limit themselves to strangers. If someone falls through the ice and their parent is there, the parent is not obligated to risk their life and go out on the ice.
most people dont know what they’re doing in situations like that and are nearly as likely to give the professional rescuers a second person they have to pull out of the water.
I think you are holding a subjective implication here about some sort of “duty” of mothers that isnt being explicitly stated. Like the “no duty to rescue” stops at pregnancy or mothers or something. for some reason, you are applying a different calculus to pregnancy.
as far as the artificial uteri thing goes, if you think a mother and father would have the embryo moved to an artificial uterus, to be raised by …. who? exactly??? if you think that would solve the problems around abortion, then I would say you dont fully appreciate the complexity of humans.
Greg | 09-May-12 at 10:18 am | Permalink
Amitava: “Of course a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, her tissue. The pro-life take is whether she has the right to decide what happens to someone else’s. Kind of “my right to swing my arm ends once it connects with someone else’s nose”. And a fetus may be within her body, it may be connected to her body, but it’s not a piece of her body”
The veracity of this premise is disputed.
I get its the premise used by pro-lifers, but that doesn’t mean its proven in anyway.
Usually, the argument from pro-lifers hinges on the idea that a single cell is a completely different person with full rights as any human based on the notion that “ensoulment” occurs at fertilization.
Just because you’re not using a religious argument doesn’t mean your premise is any less proven.
Amitava D. | 09-May-12 at 7:14 pm | Permalink
“so if I understand correctly, if a woman got pregnant as a result of being raped, AND her life is not immediately threatened by the pregnancy, you grant her no moral grounds to get an abortion.”
Correct.
“This can be extended from one cell to a point as long as consciousness is missing.” I’m glad you make that extension. I feel obliged to say, given your repeated reference to ‘one/single cells”, that abortion as it is commonly understood (a procedure performed in a clinic by a medical professional) never involves just a single-celled organism. In any event, the line that you seem to draw, if you’ll forgive my putting it so, is the possession of subjective consciousness?
“Beyond that point, there is always the threat of complications to the mother that could endanger her life, so she should always have some say in whether she carries to term or not.”
So then you don’t believe there ought to be any restrictions upon abortion?
“Duty to rescue laws do NOT limit themselves to strangers. If someone falls through the ice and their parent is there, the parent is not obligated to risk their life and go out on the ice.”
I think you may have a misunderstanding of duty to rescue laws such as they exist. By these, a bystander is not legally obligated to actually try to rescue the victim (eg perform CPR, pull from a burning car), especially if they might themselves be jeapordized by doing so. They are legally obligated, however, to do *something* to try and help; in Germany, for instance, this can be merely a call to emergency services. So to go to your example, no, the mother would not be legally obligated to go out onto the ice to rescue her child. But if it were known that she sat there and did absolutely nothing to help her child in distress, she could be held legally culpable. Not so if the victim were a stranger.
“as far as the artificial uteri thing goes, if you think a mother and father would have the embryo moved to an artificial uterus, to be raised by …. who? exactly??? if you think that would solve the problems around abortion, then I would say you dont fully appreciate the complexity of humans.”
Ah, please to note that I specifically said “Of course, this would likely entail its own legal and ethical issues,”, my point being that abortion itself, as a medical procedure alone, would likely be bereft of any further controversy.
“The veracity of this premise is disputed.” Yeah, no kidding. Which is why the abortion debate is fundamentally stalemated, and abortion arguments so often go nowhere. Unless “common ground” can be found on which to hold a discussion (which is why I so prize objectivity), then the premises upon which each sides’ arguments are predicated (it’s my body! you’re committing murder!) are rendered absolutely meaningless.
“Usually, the argument from pro-lifers hinges on the idea that a single cell is a completely different person with full rights as any human based on the notion that “ensoulment” occurs at fertilization.” Ugh. Ensoulment. Don’t get me started on these types. If I may indulge in a touch of hubris, MY rationale may not go any further in “proving” that a fetus is a person, but surely you’ll grant that it’s based upon a far more objective metric.
Greg | 09-May-12 at 7:52 pm | Permalink
Greg: “so if I understand correctly, if a woman got pregnant as a result of being raped, AND her life is not immediately threatened by the pregnancy, you grant her no moral grounds to get an abortion.”
Amitava: “Correct.”
Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy from rape to term is going to be pretty damn hard to find any “common ground” with anyone but the most adamant pro-life stance. You may have an “objective measurement” (the correct number of chromosomes), but it shows complete disregard for the mother.
The thing is your measure is objective and completely arbitrary.
Woman gets raped and goes to a hospital a few hours or days later, and you would grant her no moral ground for taking the “morning after” pill? She has to carry the pregnancy to term, risk her life to do so, and then after delivery has the rest of her life to look into the face of a child that is the product of what is likely one of the most horrendous moments of her life?
This isn’t morality. This is dogma.
Amitava: “So then you don’t believe there ought to be any restrictions upon abortion?”
I think if a woman’s life is in danger and the only way to save her life is to sacrifice the baby, that no one has the moral authority to tell her she has to die so that her baby will live.
No one.
According to your boolean logic, if the mother was NOT raped, and her life is in danger, you would not grant her moral grounds to have an abortion.
This actually seems completely unobjective and completely arbitrary to me. Well, one could potentially argue that it is “objective”, but it is arbitrarily objective, with the arbitrary part being “even a single cell fertilized egg is more important than the life of a living breathing conscious human being that carries it”.
I think you somehow convinced yourself that being “objective” means your morality can’t be arbitrary. But as far as I can see, the value you place on a single cell outweighing the complete lack of value you place on the mother’s life, is completely and totally and absolutely arbitrary.
There is no objective basis for giving a single fertilized egg more value than a living breathing human being.
None.
It’s certainly objective. But its completely arbitrary.
They are legally obligated, however, to do *something* to try and help
I oppose any duty to rescue law that would require anyone to risk their life. Going out on the ice. Running into a burning building. Anything that would put the person’s life at risk would be a law I would oppose. Professionals, such as police, fire, paramedics, doctors, and so on, would have a duty to rescue.
The only reason I brought the duty-to-rescue laws up again was because I thought you were opposed to them. You now seem to be defending them. Do you oppose duty-to-rescue laws or do you support them and I misunderstood?
“in Germany, for instance, this can be merely a call to emergency services.”
THere’s no risk in making a phone call. There is risk in carrying a pregnancy to term. You seem to have made an effort to avoid acknowledging this fact.
“MY rationale may not go any further in “proving” that a fetus is a person, but surely you’ll grant that it’s based upon a far more objective metric.”
Chromosomes? That’s objective all right. It’s also arbitrary. It fails to identify what gives a conscious entity rights. Chromosomes don’t exist in AI, and at some point, a machine might achieve true consciousness, and deserve the same rights as humans. Or maybe someday we develop the technology to upload our consciousness into a machine, at which point, I hope we don’t lose our rights as humans simply because we improved our hardware. Intelligent life on other planets might not have anything biologically in common with us, but might be just as conscious and moral and deserving of rights as we are.
In every case, the thing that gives those non-humans who do not have chromosomes, the rights associated with humnas is their consciousness, their awareness, their subjective experience.
“chromosomes” is arbitrary, because it only works for one instance: humans. You will have to come up with a different measure for “personhood” for something like alien lifeforms, or conscious machinery, and such.
I assume that if we made contact with intelligent life on another planet, and they were completely different from us on a biological level, that you would still allow them moral rights, even if they had nothing resembling chromosomes.
Amitava D. | 11-May-12 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
“She has to carry the pregnancy to term, risk her life to do so, and then after delivery has the rest of her life to look into the face of a child that is the product of what is likely one of the most horrendous moments of her life?”
That’s where adoption comes in (an area that, imho, is in need of its own reform, as an aside).
“There is no objective basis for giving a single fertilized egg more value than a living breathing human being.”
Well, not more, strictly speaking, but equal. An important distinction.
“It’s certainly objective. But its completely arbitrary.”
Well, of course. As has been mentioned on more than one occasion in the course of this discussion, any standard of morality at the end of the day is arbitrarily based. Morality’s a subjective thing (as much as that statement makes me uneasy).
“Chromosomes? That’s objective all right. It’s also arbitrary.”
Well sure. That’s where I “draw my line”, if you will. You, if I understand correctly, draw your line at “so long as it’s inside the mother”. Which is fine, it’s consistent, I just happen to disagree with. Between you and I, the entire spectrum does fall, eh?
“It fails to identify what gives a conscious entity rights.”
You place a great deal of emphasis on consciousness. My problem with that is that there are situations where that’s very difficult to determine. Incidentally, what would you say to the supposition that a third-trimester fetus almost certainly can feel pain and respond to distress?
““chromosomes” is arbitrary, because it only works for one instance: humans.”
“I assume that if we made contact with intelligent life on another planet, and they were completely different from us on a biological level, that you would still allow them moral rights, even if they had nothing resembling chromosomes.”
Why go to another planet? Intelligent life exists alongside us right here on Earth. Perhaps you’ve heard of the “Great Ape Project”, which seeks to confer legal rights to (as its name suggests) Great Apes?
Ex-actly. Which is why I think it works so well as a metric in determining how we accord rights. It’s why, philosophically, I am opposed to the concept of animal rights.
“I oppose any duty to rescue law that would require anyone to risk their life. Going out on the ice. Running into a burning building. Anything that would put the person’s life at risk would be a law I would oppose. Professionals, such as police, fire, paramedics, doctors, and so on, would have a duty to rescue.
The only reason I brought the duty-to-rescue laws up again was because I thought you were opposed to them. You now seem to be defending them. Do you oppose duty-to-rescue laws or do you support them and I misunderstood?”
I am 100% opposed to them. I should make clear what exactly I’m referring to here, though. These are laws by which bystanders are legally obligated to do something to assist another person in distress, so long as their well-being is not jeapordized (like calling for help). Where such laws exist, that’s essentially the gist of it. Where they don’t, exceptions are made (ie, a duty to rescue is still taken for granted) for
a) those who work in particular fields, eg emergency services, and
b) those who are legally responsible for the person in distress (parents or guardians of a minor, caretakers of a disabled individual).
I oppose duty to rescue laws as described, with the aforementioned exceptions. If a someone sees another person drowning, for example, and does nothing to help them, I don’t believe we have the right to punish them for their inaction.
Amitava D. | 11-May-12 at 6:01 pm | Permalink
Eesh. That got all messed up. Please ignore the above post (my apologies for any confusion).
“She has to carry the pregnancy to term, risk her life to do so, and then after delivery has the rest of her life to look into the face of a child that is the product of what is likely one of the most horrendous moments of her life?”
That’s where adoption comes in (an area that, imho, is in need of its own reform, as an aside).
“There is no objective basis for giving a single fertilized egg more value than a living breathing human being.”
Well, not more, strictly speaking, but equal. An important distinction.
“It’s certainly objective. But its completely arbitrary.”
Well, of course. As has been mentioned on more than one occasion in the course of this discussion, any standard of morality at the end of the day is arbitrarily based. Morality’s a subjective thing (as much as that statement makes me uneasy).
“Chromosomes? That’s objective all right. It’s also arbitrary.”
Well sure. That’s where I “draw my line”, if you will. You, if I understand correctly, draw your line at “so long as it’s inside the mother”. Which is fine, it’s consistent, I just happen to disagree with. Between you and I, the entire spectrum does fall, eh?
“It fails to identify what gives a conscious entity rights.”
You place a great deal of emphasis on consciousness. My problem with that is that there are situations where that’s very difficult to determine. Incidentally, what would you say to the supposition that a third-trimester fetus almost certainly can feel pain and respond to distress?
““chromosomes” is arbitrary, because it only works for one instance: humans.”
Ex-actly. Which is why I think it works so well as a metric in determining how we accord rights. It’s why, philosophically, I am opposed to the concept of animal rights.
“I assume that if we made contact with intelligent life on another planet, and they were completely different from us on a biological level, that you would still allow them moral rights, even if they had nothing resembling chromosomes.”
Why go to another planet? Intelligent life exists alongside us right here on Earth. Perhaps you’ve heard of the “Great Ape Project”, which seeks to confer legal rights to (as its name suggests) Great Apes?
“The only reason I brought the duty-to-rescue laws up again was because I thought you were opposed to them. You now seem to be defending them. Do you oppose duty-to-rescue laws or do you support them and I misunderstood?”
I am 100% opposed to them. I should make clear what exactly I’m referring to here, though. These are laws by which bystanders are legally obligated to do something to assist another person in distress, so long as their well-being is not jeapordized (like calling for help). Where such laws exist, that’s essentially the gist of it. Where they don’t, exceptions are made (ie, a duty to rescue is still taken for granted) for
a) those who work in particular fields, eg emergency services, and
b) those who are legally responsible for the person in distress (parents or guardians of a minor, caretakers of a disabled individual).
I oppose duty to rescue laws as described, with the aforementioned exceptions. If a someone sees another person drowning, for example, and does nothing to help them, I don’t believe we have the right to punish them for their inaction.
Greg | 13-May-12 at 6:48 am | Permalink
Amitava: “That’s where adoption comes in”
A woman who gets pregnant as a result of rape should be legally forced to carry the pregnancy to term, and her only relief from looking in the eyes of the child that would remind her ever day of her rape… is to give the child up for adoption???
I don’t think any morality this brutal is morality.
You’re studying to be a doctor? I hope not a gynocologist.
“Why go to another planet?”
No, no, no… lets take that hypothetical trip. Spaceships arrive on earth driven by intelligent life from another planet. They are of a biology completely unlike humans. They have no chromosomes. No DNA. They might not even have anything that we would recognize as “cells”.
But they demonstrate through their behaviour that they are intelligent, have emotions, feelings, wants, needs, and desires.
Do grant them any moral grounds for having rights?
By what objective measure do you grant them a moral basis for rights?
“I oppose duty to rescue laws as described, with the aforementioned exceptions”
Firefighters are not legally or morally obligated to go to their deaths to rescue people. They are trained to know when its safe, when there is a reasonable risk, and when there is too much risk.
Parents are not legally required in any other circumstance that I know of to risk their lives for their children except for pregnancy. You hate duty to rescue laws, but you’re making extremely severe exceptions for mothers, to the point of demanding they risk their lives.
Back to your boolean operator, your statement was that a woman had to be pregnant as a result of rape AND she had to have her life in medical danger as a result of the pregnancy before you would grant her the moral grounds for an abortion. That would mean if she got pregnant by her husband willingly and then the pregnancy became dangerous for her life, you would not grant her moral grounds for an abortion.
THIS is where you value a single cell fertilized egg as having more value than the mother.
You hide it behind an arbitrary exception to your no “duty to rescue” laws beliefs, that mothers are required to risk their lives for their unborn. But strip that away, and simply compare who has priority in your equation, and it is clear that the mother is no where near as important as the unborn, even a single cell fertilized egg.
Even if the odds are 99% that the mother will die, if she got pregnant voluntarily, you grant her no moral grounds for an abortion.
Clearly, you put far more value on the potential life of the unborn than on the real life of the mother. I know everyone likes to believe they’re consistent and fair, but this is not holding life at equal value. The mother’s life becomes almost meaningless compared to the unborn even a single cell.
Why you require rape AND a threat to the mother’s life, before allowing moral grounds for an abortion, I have no idea.
Rape by itself is not enough to compel you to grant moral grounds for an abortion.
a woman’s life being in severe and immediate danger by the pregnancy is not enough to compel you to grant moral grounds for an abortion.
But together, the two circumstances are enough to compel you to grant moral grounds for an abortion.
This combination, as far as I can see, is completely arbitrary as well. Especially, given that there is nothing in the explanations as to why you oppose abortion for either individual case, there is nothing that would suggest that when put together, you would allow an abortion.
There is no guiding rule to the individual cases that one could apply to the combined case and figure out that you would allow abortion there. Based on your opposition to abortion, based on the reasons you give as to why you would not grant it for every other condition, I would never have guessed that rape AND mother’s life in danger would be a combination that would cause you to allow an abortion.
Amitava D. | 13-May-12 at 9:58 am | Permalink
Before I say anything, I ought to tell you Greg that this well may be my last missive for a while, as starting Tuesday I’ll be out of the country for a little while. If you write back today I might be can respond; any later, and you’ll be waiting at least a couple weeks, just so you know. Anyhoo…
“I don’t think any morality this brutal is morality.”
An unfortunate circumstance, I don’t dispute, but if one believes abortion involves the killing of a person, you can see which is the less brutal of the options.
“You’re studying to be a doctor? I hope not a gynocologist.”
Family med.
Amitava D. | 13-May-12 at 10:16 am | Permalink
Dammit, premature posting! Sorry. Carrying on…
“But they demonstrate through their behaviour that they are intelligent, have emotions, feelings, wants, needs, and desires.”
In this they would be no different from apes or pigs.
“Do grant them any moral grounds for having rights?
By what objective measure do you grant them a moral basis for rights?”
I believe rights should be granted based upon capacity to assume responsibility for one’s actions, as to my mind a right can only exist concomitantly with responsibility to assume that right. So to the extent that any life form is able to assume that responsibility and take part in human society is the metric by which I believe rights should be accorded. This, incidentally, is why I’m somewhat torn when it comes to things like the Great Ape Project. It’s quite clear that bonobos, for example, are capable of “conversing” with humans.
“Firefighters are not legally or morally obligated to go to their deaths to rescue people. They are trained to know when its safe, when there is a reasonable risk, and when there is too much risk.”
Are you sure about that first part? I’m not a firefighter, but I’d think every time they go into a burning building they’d be risking their life. But in any event, the point is duty to rescue laws don’t obligate one to risk their lives, or in any way jeapordize themselves, to help someone in distress. They just obligate them to do something (eg, call an ambulance).
“That would mean if she got pregnant by her husband willingly and then the pregnancy became dangerous for her life, you would not grant her moral grounds for an abortion.
THIS is where you value a single cell fertilized egg as having more value than the mother.”
I hate to nitpick, but I don’t see how that would be possible. By the point a woman is even aware she’s pregnant, the fetus has developed far beyond the single cell phase.
“You hide it behind an arbitrary exception to your no “duty to rescue” laws beliefs, that mothers are required to risk their lives for their unborn.”
Leaving aside the argument of what constitute a parent’s duty to their child, this would be applicable of we were discussing “allowing the fetus to die”. But abortion is a procedure whereby the fetus is actively killed. If one rejects a parent’s duty to rescue, then certainly the mother is under no obligation to do anything to save her child. At the same time, that doesn’t give her the right to kill it. So theoretically, if an abortion could be achieved passively (say, by hormonally-inducing ischemia to the placenta or something like that) then I could see how it might be permissible (assuming again that parental duty to a child is obviated).
“Even if the odds are 99% that the mother will die, if she got pregnant voluntarily, you grant her no moral grounds for an abortion.”
Right. Because ultimately one has the choice whether or not to have sex (except of course in rape, ergo the aforementioned exception).
“Clearly, you put far more value on the potential life of the unborn than on the real life of the mother.”
Perhaps you mean to say potential person? Because let’s be clear, biologically speaking a conceptus is a living organism, there’s nothing potential about it. And no, working on the assumption that a fetus is a person, I don’t place more value on its life, I place an equal value. Even if the woman has a 99% chance of dying, if you perform an abortion the child has a 100% chance.
“Based on your opposition to abortion, based on the reasons you give as to why you would not grant it for every other condition, I would never have guessed that rape AND mother’s life in danger would be a combination that would cause you to allow an abortion.”
See above about choosing to have sex. And I’ll say again, it’s a position that makes me uncomfortable due to its inconsistency. Still, I can’t fathom any other way around it for the life of me.
Greg | 14-May-12 at 5:10 am | Permalink
Let me see if I have all this straight:
Your only allowance for abortion is if the mother is pregnant as a result of rape and her life is in danger from that rape-conceived pregnancy.
No other allowances given.
You feel uncomfortable granting a moral right to an abortion under this circumstance (mother raped and life in danger) but you will grant it.
If the mother gets pregnant from rape but her life is not in danger, you say she is morally obligated to have the baby. If she can’t bear to look at a reminder of being raped every day, you will allow her to give the child up for adoption. But she must deliver the baby.
If the mother is pregnant by choice, and complications arise such that her life is endangered, you say she is morally obligated to have the baby. Even if there is a 99% chance that she will die delivering the baby, you say she is morally obligated to risk her life to deliver the baby.
You’re saying these moral obligations begin at conception. The moment a fertilized egg attaches itself to the woman, the moment the woman becomes pregnant, she is obligated to carry that pregnancy to completion.
On to the next topic: you are opposed to the concept of animal rights.
You see no moral conundrum if someone wants to eat an animal, any animal, while it is still alive. Regardless of how much pain that might inflict for however long it would inflict it.
You would be suspicious of any attempt to regulate or legislate the amount of pain humans can inflict on an animal because such attempts are almost always based on sentiment rather than reason, and inconsistently applied.
Your a vegetarian, but not because of anything that happens to animals from eating meat.
You haven’t explicitly said so, but it would appear that given the choice between a law that protected the rights of some animals but did so in some inconsistent manner, and a choice of no law at all which would then at least be “consistent”, you would rather choose no law and be “consistent”.
Have I correctly summed up your positions?
Amitava D. | 14-May-12 at 7:37 am | Permalink
“The moment a fertilized egg attaches itself to the woman, the moment the woman becomes pregnant, she is obligated to carry that pregnancy to completion.”
Rather the moment the egg is fertilized, as that’s the dividing line between “parental tissues” (sperm & egg) and “human organism”. Incidentally, you make mention of implantation; I actually have less objection to contragestive measures like IUDs, which by preventing implantation don’t kill the conceptus but “allow it to die”; I believe one has a duty not to kill, but that does not equate to a duty to save. The only reason I say “less objection” rather than “no objection” is because of the “parental duty to offspring” issue, as discussed earlier. As you might expect I have no objection to contraception.
“You see no moral conundrum if someone wants to eat an animal, any animal, while it is still alive. Regardless of how much pain that might inflict for however long it would inflict it.”
May I ask wherein precisely would the conundrum lie? I do believe it to be inconsistent to ban things like ikizukuri while allowing for modern factory farming methods. But I must take issue with “any animal”.
I am not an animal rights activist, but I do consider myself to be an environmentalist. I believe endangered species ought to be afforded legal protection (and consistently so, too. People who oppose protecting “minor” species like snail darters or the Delhi sand fly by saying “it’s just a fly/minnow/whatever” either don’t understand biology or don’t really care about endangered species).
Everything else you’re pretty much spot on. As you’ve indicated, I strongly believe that any moral code must be consistently formulated and applied if it’s to have any weight and meaning. There’s nothing I hate more than hypocrisy and double standards.
Greg | 14-May-12 at 5:29 pm | Permalink
Amitava: “Rather the moment the egg is fertilized,”
OK, slight tweak. So, a fertilized egg should not be killed but can be allowed to die. But again, for the mother, once its implanted itself, and removing it would cause it to die, the mother has no moral right to abort.
“May I ask wherein precisely would the conundrum lie?”
If you go to an animal shelter in a big enough city, over a long enough period of time, you will find animals that were kept alive by the owner for no other reason than so the owner could torture the animal, over a period of years. I have a problem with that.
We raised cattle and hogs on the farm when I was growing up, but we generally tried to make sure they were taken care of, not in pain, healthy, fed, watered, etc. If they were sick and couldn’t recover, we euthanized them to put them out of suffering. yes, they were eventually sent to slaughter, but the point of that was to kill them quickly, not to torture them.
“There’s nothing I hate more than hypocrisy and double standards.”
History seems to show that philosophy, morality, the law, and the state are an incremental process. I think anyone who thinks they can ever reach a point that is “perfect” is kidding themselves. There are likely aspects of how you and I live today that will be viewed as backward thinking brutes a century or two from now. And a century from now, people will live in ways that two centuries from now people will look back and mock. and so on.
My goal is not to be perfect. My goal is not to stamp out all hypocricy. My goal is not to stamp out all double standards. My goal is to make the world a little more civilized than it was the day before. And sometimes that means we do things that make the world a little better, even if it creates hypocrisy. The US Constitution was a vast improvement over anything before it. And it allowed for Slavery. I would have pushed for the Constitution as it was, warts and all, rather than have allowed the Americas to turn into another monarchy, which would have been far worse.
I have a problem with people torturing animals for no other reason than to inflict pain. Even if you think that doesn’t perfectly jive with the fact that I eat meat, I would rather make the world a little better for one part of it, and create a double standard that the rest of the world has to catch up with, rather than to leave the world far more immoral but unhypocritical.
History shows that morality is an incrimental process. If there is such a thing as “good”, and we get there a little bit at a time, that means any particular step is going to create some hypocrisies and some double standards.
Amitava D. | 14-May-12 at 10:19 pm | Permalink
Ever the utilitarian, eh? As you might imagine I prefer the deontoligical perspective myself.
“I have a problem with people torturing animals for no other reason than to inflict pain.”
Well ikizukuri, as I understand it, isn’t done for the purpose of inflicting pain on the fish, it’s done to eat meat that’s maximally “fresh” as possible. A sensuous indulgence, to be sure, but then, it could be argued, is eating meat.
Anyway, I should love to respond at greater length, but I’m going to be taking my leave in about seven hours. Feel free to write back, and I’ll be happy to respond towards the end of the month. Or if you’re not so inclined, well then, this has been a most invigorating and enjoyable monthlong (!!!) conversation. Be seeing you at Whatever, I’m sure!
Greg | 16-May-12 at 7:22 am | Permalink
I’ve been accused of a lot of things in my life, but I don’t think anyone has ever accused me of being too “utilitarian”.
Amitava D. | 29-May-12 at 10:11 am | Permalink
Ha! My dear Mr. Greg, in the event that you may read this, please don’t take “utilitarianism” as an accusation, but rather an observation (in your ethics, that is, as opposed to deontological, an alternative which, considering how “rule/line-bound” we libertarians seem to be, you many find unsurprising).
Greg | 29-May-12 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
I believe the term is “ethical pragmatist”. I’m not sure I’m one of those either. But obedience to a rule is definitely not my definition of morality.
I am a bit confused by your invocation of animal pain in your attempts to disprove my line of thinking but not your own. Your latest one is this:
“A sensuous indulgence, to be sure, but then, it could be argued, is eating meat.”
You’re not a vegetarian because of any concern for animals. And yet this is a round about swipe against eating meat based on animal pain. At the very least, you’re attempting to disprove by implying hypocrisy is occurring to worry about animals being tortured while eating meat of any kind.
It’s not actually hypocrisy. It’s based on a rule that is consistently applied based on grades of pain and suffering, but you keep trying to make it all or nothing.
like this:
“I do believe it to be inconsistent to ban things like ikizukuri while allowing for modern factory farming methods.”
This disregards and ignores levels of pain and suffering and bins it into all or nothing. It would be the difference between me stepping on your foot and hitting you with a bus at speed. I assume any repercussions for my actions would take the actual damage, and the actual pain, I inflict into account.
“I believe rights should be granted based upon capacity to assume responsibility for one’s actions, as to my mind a right can only exist concomitantly with responsibility to assume that right. So to the extent that any life form is able to assume that responsibility and take part in human society is the metric by which I believe rights should be accorded.”
How does a single cell assume any responsibility for its actions?
I’m not really up on the exact label that fits your belief system here, but “speciesism” seems to keep coming up. A quick perusal of wikipedia seems to agree with that. It mentions the great ape project, so maybe you’re already familiar with the term.
You give rights to humans because they’re human, because they have the right number of genomes, and the right kind of DNA. And because nothing else has human genomes or human DNA, you don’t give anything else any rights at all.
A single cell gets complete protection because it has human DNA, but you would allow animals to be tortured for a lifetime because they don’t have the right DNA.
The experience of pain of the living creature doesn’t matter to you. The complete *lack* of subjective experience doesn’t matter to you. The fact that a fertilized egg is an unconscious drop of tissue doesn’t matter to you.
It comes down to DNA. It comes down to being the right species.
Maybe its an empathy thing
http://glennrowe.net/BaronCohen/EmpathyQuotient/EmpathyQuotient.aspx
Amitava D. | 01-Jun-12 at 9:18 am | Permalink
Well I do declare, Greg, you responded! I had thought after so long an absence on my part I had probably written to nothing more than the nebulous netherworld of the internet, but a suivre, as it would seem! I’ll write at length shortly (no pun(???) intended)
Amitava D. | 04-Jun-12 at 8:41 am | Permalink
Interesting test there, I scored a low normal (ironically enough, I answered that seeing animals suffer does bother me). Some of those questions are a touch curious, though. Making checklists of things I need to do? I’d be interested to hear the psychological backdrop to that. And just out of curiosity, do you know why “Baron Cohen” is in the address? Not anything to do with Sacha, I suppose?
“At the very least, you’re attempting to disprove by implying hypocrisy is occurring to worry about animals being tortured while eating meat of any kind.”
I’m not sure I followed that completely.
“This disregards and ignores levels of pain and suffering and bins it into all or nothing. It would be the difference between me stepping on your foot and hitting you with a bus at speed. ”
I think I see what you’re driving towards. Allow me, if I may, to make something absolutely clear. I sincerely and genuinely believe that the average chicken or pig that provisions your meat in the grocery store via a modern abbatoir suffers no less (I repeat, no less) than the fish which has the misfortune of finding itself being eaten alive by a group of Japanese gourmands. A different kind of suffering, perhaps, but all told if I had to choose between a half-hour of vivisection and spending my life immobilized, being randomly mutilated, fed my own waste etc., well. At best it would be a coin toss. If there’s a gradation to the suffering at hand here, it’s a very subtle one indeed.
“How does a single cell assume any responsibility for its actions?”
It can’t, any more than an infant or someone who’s been brain-damaged can. This is why humans that are unable to assume any responsibility for themselves (minors, developmentally disabled, etc) are granted considerably limited rights. They’re not afforded legal autonomy, but among the rights they do have is the right not to be killed. I extend the same right to a fetus, since the only difference I see between a fetus and a newborn is whether it’s inside or outside the mother. (Incidentally, if you’ll forgive my saying so, but your repeated emphasis on the single-celled nature of a conceptus is largely irrelevant if we’re discussing abortion as it’s commonly understood. Granted it certainly falls within *my* view of the matter, but abortion as a medical procedure never involves a single-celled conceptus).
“I’m not really up on the exact label that fits your belief system here, but “speciesism” seems to keep coming up.”
Yep, I’d say that fits the bill pretty well.
“And because nothing else has human genomes or human DNA, you don’t give anything else any rights at all.”
Well, no. I support protecting endangered species, for example. But some sort of standard has to be used if we’re going to grant rights to non-humans. And I’d rather it be consistent and non-sentimental (why is it illegal to slaughter horses, but not cows? Because horses are “cute”?) So if the standard is not going to be “it’s human”, then what? Intelligence? Unless I’m much mistaken, you’re willing to countenance animal suffering based on its necessity. It’s a viewpoint I can actually respect, it’s just that I just see industrial animal husbandry and things like ikizukuri as being comparable.
Greg | 06-Jun-12 at 10:07 am | Permalink
Amitava: ” I sincerely and genuinely believe that the average chicken or pig that provisions your meat in the grocery store via a modern abbatoir suffers no less (I repeat, no less) than the fish which has the misfortune of finding itself being eaten alive by a group of Japanese gourmands. A different kind of suffering, perhaps”
manslaughter is a different kind of crime than murder, too. But you’ve glommed them together into one thing. Maybe you think they *should* be treated as one kind of crime, but most people think the subjective differences matter. Most people think *intent* matters, even if the outcome is objectively the same (i.e. a person is dead.)
You’re glomming suffering together into one thing and ignoring *all* subjective measures that would differentiate something like free-range, pasture-raised, beef versus setting a cat on fire just to see it burn.
Yes, both suffer at the hands of humans, but the level of suffering is different, and more importantly, the *intent* is different. We raised cattle and did what we could to minimize any suffering we inflicted. I’m talking from personal experience here. You can cite factory farms and you can try to glom all farms into whatever worst case you want, but it’s a hasty generalization and it doesn’t fly. If you want to make a convincing argument, or more specifically, if you have any desire to convince *me* of a different view, you can’t pick the worst fo the worst and say it applies to all.
We kept suffering to a minimimum. And that meant we didn’t raise veal, we didn’t raise foi gras, we didn’t raise any kind of livestock that required suffering just to improve some oddball flavor. We didn’t eat the cow while it was alive because it had some better flavor.
But you’re glomming the entire spectrum of gray into black/white. And it does not convince.
“I just see industrial animal husbandry and things like ikizukuri as being comparable.”
This makes it extremely hard for me not to dismiss you out of hand. You’re taking the worst of the worst of factory farming and saying its all that bad. It’s not true. And having grown up on a farm where we made a point to minimize suffering, it’s insulting.
“I support protecting endangered species, for example.”
You support protecting endangered species because of the potential damage their extinction might cause to *mankind*. You don’t *care* about those species intrinsically. You care about them for entirely selfish reasons.
This is libertarianism in a nutshell, as far as I can see. There is no sense of “other” unless it comes with some kind of selfish payoff. Libertarians will often argue that they adopt a sense of “universal human rights” because if they don’t extend those rights to others, then they can’t expect those same rights *from* others to *themselves*.
There is no intrinsic worth within anyone else, or anything else, or some alien “other”, unless it answers something positive to the question “what’s in it for me?”
Every conversation I have with a libertarian that dives deep enough boils down to this. Everything is quid pro quo. There is no sense of “inalienable rights”, its always of a form “I want people to treat me a certain way, so I’ll treat them a certain way”. It’s the Golden Rule turned on its head. A running tally is kept to make sure that the rights extended to others is just up to the edge of the rights the individual libertarian wants extended to himself.
And it is NOT the same thing.
“(why is it illegal to slaughter horses, but not cows? Because horses are “cute”?)”
Why is this so bloody hard for you to get? The answer is entirely straightforward. The reason we have different laws for horses and cows is because we don’t need to eat horses. Horses are generally kept for nonutilitarian purposes. They’re more like really big pets that people have because they enjoy them. And we have different laws for livestock that we eat than we do for pets.
I get that you prioritize consistency over all else.
But the problem with that is if eating animals is morally “dark gray”, then it would be better to outlaw some cruel animal treatment, than it would be to allow some animals to be slaughtered (because we eat them), and make it illegal to slaughter other animals (because we don’t eat them).
If you prioritize consistency over everything else, if you’d rather the laws allow the slaughter of any and all animals for any reason at any time using any method, and if there is any immorality whatsoever to killing an animal, if there is some “dark gray” to the act of killing an animal, then what you’re saying is you’d rather allow pure evil than to have inconsistent laws.
Pouring gasoline on a cat and setting it on fire is evil. Killing an animal as quickly and painlessly as possible so that you can eat it, has some moral quandaries, but it isn’t as evil as slowly burning a cat alive for no purpose other than entertainment.
But because the laws allow some animals to be treated one way and other animals to be treated other ways, you’d rather the law be consistent and allow completely immoral behavior than to have it be inconsistent and outlaw some immoral behavior.
You’ve prioritized consistency over morality. It is more important to you that the laws satisfy logic than to satisfy justice.
You have made “perfect” the enemy of “good”.
Amitava D. | 06-Jun-12 at 11:43 am | Permalink
“manslaughter is a different kind of crime than murder, too. But you’ve glommed them together into one thing. Maybe you think they *should* be treated as one kind of crime, but most people think the subjective differences matter.”
That’s just the thing, though, intent is the differentiating factor between the two. It’s not a subjective difference (even if the process whereby intent is determined, ie trial by jury, is subjective.)
“You’re taking the worst of the worst of factory farming and saying its all that bad. It’s not true. And having grown up on a farm where we made a point to minimize suffering, it’s insulting.”
I do apologize if I’ve offended you, but if you read what I wrote here, I have very carefully relegated my remarks to “food that you buy in the grocery store” (in fact, I believe the genesis of this originated when I asked where you buy meat). If I may say so without sounding patronizing, your family running an independent farm is something to be commended for a number of reasons which I needn’t enumerate. I daresay, however, that the vast majority of meat that Americans buy doesn’t come from the likes of Greg Inc., it comes from the likes of ArcherDanielsMidland. Now, one assumption that I have made regards the sort of place where you do your grocery shopping. You well may make a point of only purchasing grass-fed, free-range, cage-free, etc., in which case I don’t cite any inconsistency at all in your beliefs. For the majority of Americans who don’t, however, yet get squeamish about watching animals die, let alone suffer…another story.
“You support protecting endangered species because of the potential damage their extinction might cause to *mankind*. You don’t *care* about those species intrinsically. You care about them for entirely selfish reasons.”
“You support protecting endangered species because of the potential damage their extinction might cause to *mankind*. You don’t *care* about those species intrinsically. You care about them for entirely selfish reasons.
This is libertarianism in a nutshell, as far as I can see. ”
Ehh, speciesism (sp??), I’d say. I’m concerned for the common good (which does affect me, of course), but I’m not looking at it from an individualist perspective, I’m looking at it from the interests of human beings. I mean, look. I’m single, I don’t have kids. If I were truly selfish, I could just say “what happens over the next several generations won’t affect me, why should I care?” (Was that too nitpicky?)
““I want people to treat me a certain way, so I’ll treat them a certain way”. It’s the Golden Rule turned on its head.” Actually that looks to me like the Golden Rule itself. Not to go all Objectivist here, but it seems to me selfishness ultimately underlies most of what people as a whole do. It’s a logically deducible idea, and moreover I have to say it’s something I see often enough in my own life.
“The reason we have different laws for horses and cows is because we don’t need to eat horses. ”
We don’t need to eat cows, either.
“Horses are generally kept for nonutilitarian purposes. They’re more like really big pets that people have because they enjoy them.”
You can speak for yourself there. But you can’t speak for, say, some Uzbek immigrant who decides to buy a some foals specifically in order to raise them to eat. And I don’t see how you, I, or anybody else can take it upon ourselves to tell him otherwise.
“And we have different laws for livestock that we eat than we do for pets.”
Ah-ha! If laws applied to “livestock” vs “pets”, then I’d have less objection. A pig can be a pet. Likewise, horses can be livestock (right? I’m not a farmer). But basing such laws on the which species you, I, or whatever the lawmaker happens to favor is something that I see as (surprise!) inconsistent and will never support.
“Pouring gasoline on a cat and setting it on fire is evil.”
Again, as uncomfortable as moral relativism makes me, words like “evil” are inherently subjective. You know what else is considered evil? Wearing fur. Gay sex. Charging interest on loans. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Setting a cat on fire is cruel. So is squirting acid into rabbits’ eyes. What’s the difference? Whim vs necessity? (Now, as an aside, I can accept that random acts of animal cruelty warrant the attention of the state, insofar as they are usually indicative of a more serious (and dangerous) underlying problem).
“but it isn’t as evil as slowly burning a cat alive for no purpose other than entertainment.”
Sure, but to the extent that I understand it, ikizukuri isn’t done for the purpose of torturing the fish. The suffering the fish undergoes is largely incidental (I think).
“You’ve prioritized consistency over morality. It is more important to you that the laws satisfy logic than to satisfy justice.”
I don’t believe true justice can be illogical. True ethics cannot be inconsistent. That, by way of example, is one of the reasons why I have such a problem with the Nuremberg Trials. Not because Nazis were punished, but because the Soviets sat amongst their judges.
Greg | 06-Jun-12 at 5:43 pm | Permalink
“I don’t believe true justice can be illogical. True ethics cannot be inconsistent.”
No True Scotsman.
No. Really. You need to understand that’s all you did there. Nothing more than a logical fallacy.
“it seems to me selfishness ultimately underlies most of what people as a whole do”
And if everyone jumped off a bridge, would that make it right?
You do realize that you keep saying “consistency” is your priority. And yet, there is no consistency in a moral system that says “if everyone’s doing it, then why not do it?” That’s not logical, its argument ad populum.
No. Really. It’s a logical fallacy. That’s all it is.
Greg: “The reason we have different laws for horses and cows is because we don’t need to eat horses. ”
Amitava: “We don’t need to eat cows, either.”
But we do. That’s the basis for the differences in the law. You keep acting as if it is unfathomable that we treat different animal species differently from a legal perspective, but, hey, guess what, we treat animals differently from a non-legal perspective too.
We eat beef. We don’t eat horses. The laws are different for those two species.
You keep insisting that it is illogical and inconsistent to have one set of laws for cattle and a different set of laws for horses. But we eat cattle and we don’t eat horses, so the laws are different.
“You can speak for yourself there. But you can’t speak for, say, some Uzbek immigrant who decides to buy a some foals specifically in order to raise them to eat. And I don’t see how you, I, or anybody else can take it upon ourselves to tell him otherwise.”
Oh, this is getting into nonsense now.
You have your version of morality and I have mine. And we both have pieces of our morality that we think is worthy of being taken on at the government level. For you, it might be that your morality about “logical consistency” is more important that the ethical treatment of some species of animals. That’s you.
If you advocate for that at the government level, you’re taking it upon yourself to tell people like me otherwise.
This is another thing about Libertarians that is maddening. Religious people would disown their morality from themselves by assigning it to God. God said this is right and that is wrong. They do this to dissassociate themselves from their moral compass. It is the old fashioned version of “lurkers support me in email”, except its “God told me I am absolutly right”.
Libertarians do something similar, except rather than invoking “God”, they think they’ve found some “logical” reductionism to morality that exports their moral compass to some external laws of physics. It’s “lurkers support me in email”, but in this case it often sounds something like “your morality is arbitrary, my morality is based on irrefutable logic”
You would not be the first libertarian who would wonder aloud how I could force my view of morality on anyone else, and yet you advocate for your morality with no less stridency than me.
I get that when I dig down enough through my morality, I eventually reach my moral compass. My moral compass. Not God’s moral compass handed to me from atop the mountain. And not “Logic’s” moral compass handed down to me from some Philosopher-King/Philosopher-Tyrant. I know that I have no one to export my moral beliefs to. I can’t say god or the devil or Plato and his cave made me do it. When I advocate for some moral belief, it is ultimately sourced by me.
Thing is, that’s the case with everyone. You’re morality ultimately comes from nowhere other than your own internal moral compass.
And so when we get together to form a state, everyone is trying to impose their form of right and wrong on everyone else. I get that when I say I support a woman’s right to an abortion, and that it should be protected in the law, I get I ultimately have no higher authority to fall back on other than “that’s what I think”. And yet “That’s what I think” is ultimately the final authority behind your morality too.
The problem isn’t that I am somehow different in taking it upon myself to tell anti-abortion people otherwise. It’s they’re telling me otherwise, and I’m telling them otherwise, and neither one of us has any higher moral authority to point to than our own internal personal moral compasses. At which point we’d better figure out a way to form a state based on nothing but individuals with their individual moral compasses and try to find some common ground.
Your moral compass has no higher authority than mine does. We are equals, and together we are part of a state. If you ask “who are you to impose your compass on anyone else?” then you don’t understand how individuals with their individual moral compasses form a state.
“That, by way of example, is one of the reasons why I have such a problem with the Nuremberg Trials. Not because Nazis were punished, but because the Soviets sat amongst their judges.”
OK. Fine. Here’s a simple, totally non-rhetorical question for you:
Would the world have been BETTER OFF if there had be NO NUREMBERG TRIALS or was the world BETTER OFF having imperfect Nuremberg Trials?
If you have a choice between (1) taking some Nazi’s to trial for war crimes and other war criminals getting away or (2) letting ALL war criminals go unpunished, which would be better for the world?
(1) gives you Perfect Logical Consistency and complete injustice. (2) gives you inconsistency and at least some justice.
And you prioritize logical consistency over justice.
“Again, as uncomfortable as moral relativism makes me, words like “evil” are inherently subjective. You know what else is considered evil?”
This is what I’m talking about. You dismiss what I consider evil, because you think the needle of your moral compass is controlled by some external thing other than you, logic or some such thing. No. It’s YOU.
Your morality is what you consider to be moral. And that’s no different than MY morality is what I consider to be moral.
“The line has to be drawn somewhere.”
Yes it does. And where I draw it is based on my internal compass and where you draw it is based on your internal compass. I consider burning a cat alive to be evil.
You consider laws that are not perfectly logical to be evil.
“Setting a cat on fire is cruel.”
In YOUR CONSIDERATION.
See. This is that thing I was talking about where you think your morality is different and better than mine. I get my morality comes from my moral compass. I have no one else but myself to cite when I say “Pouring gasoline on a cat and setting it on fire is evil”.
But you, you dismiss it because it is only my opinion, and it is some arbitrary line drawn in the sand and you know what else other people ahve considered immoral, you ask? “Gay sex”, you reply. As if showing thta someone else’s messed up morality somehow shows that my morality is flawed, but that your’s isn’t.
“The line has to be drawn somewhere.”
Yes. And where you draw the line is fundamentally no better sourced than where I draw my line. We both draw it where we both think it is best drawn.
You think I’m being arbitrary and you think you’re not arbitrary.
The difference is I get that on a fundamental level, we’re BOTH being arbitrary in that we’re BOTH left no recourse but ot refer to where our individual internal moral compasses point.
Pouring gasoline on a cat and setting it on fire is evil. Yes. I drew a line. Damn right I did.
Your line is somewhere else. Rather than stradle the issues between pain and suffering and find a fracture or fault line along which to draw your moral line, you chose a different spot. You drew your line of right and wrong where the tectonic plates of perfect-logic and inconsistent-reality meet. Thta’s were you drew your line of morality and justice. And it’s fundamentally just as arbitrary as my line.
Just because some bigotted assholes drew their line of right and wrong between straight-sex and gay-sex doesn’t mean that my line is wrong but your line is right. And it doesn’t mean because they “considered” gay sex wrong and I “consider” animal cruelty wrong that I’m just as arbitrary as some homophobe.
You, and I, and that homophobe are all “arbitrary” in that we have nothing but our internal compass to go by. But you’ll notice that you don’t hold all three of us as having the same moral standing. The homophobe “considered” gay sex bad and he was wrong. Some people “considered” wearing fur to be bad and they were wrong. Some people “considered” charging interest to be bad and they were wrong. I “consider” animal cruelty to be bad and I am wrong.
But you don’t hold your morality as if you “consider” it the same way you think I “consider” my morality. You think my morality is arbitrary. you think your morality is based on external, perfect, logic, and therefore is intrinsicaly better.
You don’t hold your morality as your morality. You hold it as if it were sourced by something external from you, i.e. you think it is sourced by some kind of external, absolute, Logic, and everyone else is basing their morality off of their internal, and flawed, thinking.
Amitava D. | 06-Jun-12 at 6:47 pm | Permalink
“No True Scotsman.
No. Really. You need to understand that’s all you did there. Nothing more than a logical fallacy.”
Mm, yes I see that. Take away the “true” then. I think I like it even better that way. Justice cannot be illogical, then it is not justice. Ethics cannot be inconsistent, then they’re not ethical at all.
“We eat beef. We don’t eat horses.”
Who’s this “we” you’re speaking of? *You* eat beef but not horse. I eat neither. And someone else might eat horse but not beef. Which goes back the example I gave.
“And we both have pieces of our morality that we think is worthy of being taken on at the government level.” I don’t think either is worthy of being taken to the govt. level. That’s the whole point. I wouldn’t make impositions on *anybody’s* culinary habits using the law. If I own a cow and a horse, and have raised them in the same set of circumstances, will you please explain to me why I should be permitted to shoot one in the head but not the other?
“Libertarians do something similar, except rather than invoking “God”, they think they’ve found some “logical” reductionism to morality that exports their moral compass to some external laws of physics. It’s “lurkers support me in email”, but in this case it often sounds something like “your morality is arbitrary, my morality is based on irrefutable logic”
You would not be the first libertarian who would wonder aloud how I could force my view of morality on anyone else, and yet you advocate for your morality with no less stridency than me.”
I don’t think my morality is the most “logical”. I think it’s the most permissive. I’m not forcing you to accept my morality, I’m just demanding that you not force yours upon anybody else’s. And if that means that a given person should not be obliged to help their fellow man, then that’s their right (which is why I brought up duty to rescue laws way back when).
“Thing is, that’s the case with everyone. You’re morality ultimately comes from nowhere other than your own internal moral compass.”
On this point we are in 100% agreement.
“And so when we get together to form a state, everyone is trying to impose their form of right and wrong on everyone else.”
Yup. That’s why I’m so strongly drawn towards the whole idea of non-aggression and voluntariness. The presumption that any given person *is* part of a state, regardless of whether they want to be or not, is something to which I am very strongly opposed.
“At which point we’d better figure out a way to form a state based on nothing but individuals with their individual moral compasses and try to find some common ground.”
Common ground. There you’ve hit the nail on the head. Which is why I believe the state’s power is best relegated to that which we can agree upon (as you’ve described before, the libertarian view that “govt. should prevent people from hurting each other”.)
“Would the world have been BETTER OFF if there had be NO NUREMBERG TRIALS or was the world BETTER OFF having imperfect Nuremberg Trials?” Ooh, I am so sorely tempted to make an “if by whiskey” response. I’m not sure exactly of how the circumstances you seem to suggest would have come about. I’ll say this, I think that we should have tried the Nazis who were in the power of the western Allies on our own, and let the Soviets do with theirs as they would (yes, even if by some bizarre chance that had meant they’d go free. I imagine the more likely outcome would have been them getting summarily shot. Which is its own injustice, I guess. But still one I’d be willing to accept).
” You dismiss what I consider evil, because you think the needle of your moral compass is controlled by some external thing other than you, logic or some such thing. No. It’s YOU.”
I don’t dismiss what you consider evil. But I think it’s best when the government only restricts that which we *all* consider proscribable (going back to the whole idea of “common ground”).
“Yes. And where you draw the line is fundamentally no better sourced than where I draw my line. We both draw it where we both think it is best drawn.
You think I’m being arbitrary and you think you’re not arbitrary…You drew your line of right and wrong where the tectonic plates of perfect-logic and inconsistent-reality meet…You think my morality is arbitrary. you think your morality is based on external, perfect, logic, and therefore is intrinsicaly better.
You don’t hold your morality as your morality. You hold it as if it were sourced by something external from you, i.e. you think it is sourced by some kind of external, absolute, Logic, and everyone else is basing their morality off of their internal, and flawed, thinking. ”
Wrong. I don’t draw the line where *I* think it’s best. That’s my point; I’d rather let people draw their own, so long as it was done in a fashion that didn’t harm anybody else. You know I’m a libertarian, but that’s all you know about me. In terms of my personal beliefs, I can be extremely conservative. And if I were God-Emperor of Amitavastan, and my own whims enacted into law, I imagine things might look like a technologically permissive Anabaptist society (my more liberal friends tell me I’d fit in perfectly in Saudi Arabia. Well, um…) I may personally disapprove of things like drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography, etc. I may consider them to be immoral. But so long as the practitioners of these things aren’t harming me or any other non-consenting person, how can I dictate to them what they might and mightn’t do, even if I’m observing something that really upsets me? I don’t see how I can, no matter how much I may want to, and still maintain (get ready for it) consistency of thought. That’s the whole point.
Greg | 07-Jun-12 at 7:25 am | Permalink
Greg: “We eat beef. We don’t eat horses.”
Amitava: “Who’s this “we” you’re speaking of?”
The same “we” who passed the laws saying *we*
treat cattle one way and horses another way.
Amitava: “I wouldn’t make impositions on *anybody’s* culinary habits using the law.”
But you’re saying *we* have no moral standing to
regulate this or that. That’s *you* imposing *your*
moral views on everyone else.
” I’m just demanding that you not force yours upon anybody else’s.”
Exactly. You’re demanding. That’s nothing more than you looking at your personal moral compass and imposing it on everyone else.
When I say “women ought to be able to have some rights to abortion”, I am clear that is me looking at my internal, personal, individual moral compass and saying that’s the direction that *we* as a state should go.
You are doing exactly the same thing. You’re looking at your compass and saying thats the way we as a state should treat individuals.
The only difference between you and I in this regard is that your compass points in a different direction than mine.
“The presumption that any given person *is* part of a state, regardless of whether they want to be or not, is something to which I am very strongly opposed.”
And guess what? That’s also part of your compass.
” I don’t draw the line where *I* think it’s best. That’s my point; I’d rather let people draw their own, so long as it was done in a fashion that didn’t harm anybody else.”
God damn it, man. That is exactly the same thing as drawing a line.
You know that part where I said religious people “export” their moral compass to God and Libertarians “export” their moral compass to “logic”. That’s exactly what you did there.
YOU DREW A LINE that said “people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else”. That is YOUR LINE. YOU DREW IT.
But like EVERY Libertarian I’ve ever run into, you think this is somehow different. You don’t think this is some aspect of your personal moral compass. You think this is some external absolute moral truth.
I don’t draw the line where *I* think it’s best.
Yes, you do. Completely and totally, this is all sourced by you.
“Which is why I believe the state’s power is best relegated to that which we can agree upon”
This is nonsense. No bank robber is ever going to agree upon outlawing the robbing of banks. You can’t have unanimous agreement, because evil men will never agree to be regulated.
Let me say that again because this is exactly where Libertarian Philosophy falls flat on its face:
EVERY EVIL PERSON WILL OPPOSE REGULATION THAT RESTRICTS THEIR EVIL ACTS.
Therefore anyone who draws a line that demands that the State must have Unanimous agreement, is designing anarchy with a thin veneer of “morality” on top.
And every Libertarian knows their demand for unanimous agreement fails immediately, so they try to plug the leak by saying “Physical violence can be outlawed”.
Yeah?
Really?
It’s an arbitrarily drawn line, no different than anyone else’s moral compass.
But Libertarians convince themselves that they’ve uncovered some external, absolute, “truth”, and can’t see that its just happens to be exactly in line with the direction their internal moral compass just happens to be pointing. It’s how you can say something like:
” I don’t draw the line where *I* think it’s best.”
and think you’re speaking honestly. Well, if you didn’t draw the line at “so long as it harms none”, then who did? It certainly didn’t draw itself.
Amitava D. | 08-Jun-12 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
“The same “we” who passed the laws saying *we*
treat cattle one way and horses another way.”
Ah, good old cultural paternalism, eh? Not too dissimilar from the mindset that mandates school prayer, 10 commandments in courthouses, english-only movements and all that? (Sorry, I’m just being ornery). Look, I acknowledge that that’s the “cultural rationale” that underlies this particular issue. So let me put it to you this way. Say I’m a registered voter (which is the case) or, for that matter, a legislator (which is not). Were I given the opportunity to legalize, or vote in favor of legalizing horse slaughter (provided it’s done in a humane manner so that that particular contention may be quelled), can you explain to me why I should not? Why should I support this double standard in the status quo?
“Exactly. You’re demanding. That’s nothing more than you looking at your personal moral compass and imposing it on everyone else.”
True, but there’s this: I’m not obliging anyone else to actually do something, I’m obliging them to *refrain* from doing something. Maybe you don’t see this as being any different, but for me it’s a crucial distinction.
““The presumption that any given person *is* part of a state, regardless of whether they want to be or not, is something to which I am very strongly opposed.”
And guess what? That’s also part of your compass.”
Yup. A very important component of it too, I’d say.
“This is nonsense. No bank robber is ever going to agree upon outlawing the robbing of banks. You can’t have unanimous agreement, because evil men will never agree to be regulated.”
I’m not so sure of this. If you’ll allow me the use of your analogy: in my experience most people, if (which can be an iffy if, admittedly) they recognize that some given act of theirs is deemed censurable by society, don’t object to its being outlawed. More often it’s rather a mindset of “if I can get away with it, I’ll do my best to do so”.
“But Libertarians convince themselves that they’ve uncovered some external, absolute, “truth”, and can’t see that its just happens to be exactly in line with the direction their internal moral compass just happens to be pointing.”
I can’t speak for libertarians at large (at least not the ones with whom you’ve dealt, aside from yours truly), but I will say unambiguously that this is not the case with me. I don’t believe I know “truth”, and I don’t believe my beliefs are ultimately founded upon logic (I’m not sure that’s even possible; it’s like saying “my beliefs are founded upon goodness”. Logic’s a means, not an end.)
So if you please, hearken unto me well, mon adversaire de taille. *I fully acknowledge that my viewpoints are dependent upon opinion, belief, and a subjective “moral compass” if you will*. I don’t believe that compass is defined by an absolute truth. But if I could express it succinctly, I guess it would go something like this: “I believe liberty is more important than physical well-being (not that I see the two as being inherently at odds, mind you), I believe negative rights should always supersede positive rights (to the extent that I even acknowledge them), and I will never accept aggression as being morally justified.” I believe this is good, I believe this is right, I believe it is just. (On some earlier discussion at Mr. Scalzi’s blog, I had said something along the lines of “I’d rather a thousand die before a single man is forced against his will to help them”. I was being a touch polemical, I’ll admit). I cannot say that the truth value to this statement exceeds any opposing statement you might make. If other libertarians do, well, so be it. But I do not.
“” I don’t draw the line where *I* think it’s best.”
and think you’re speaking honestly. Well, if you didn’t draw the line at “so long as it harms none”, then who did? It certainly didn’t draw itself.”
I’m certainly speaking sincerely. On that you cannot defy me (pardon the overweening hubris of my tone. Blech). Aside from the line “harm none”, I draw no lines. That’s the point. My belief system is not the most “truthful” or “logical”, but it is so far as I can see the most permissive. Which goes back in turn to my moral compass as I described it.
Greg | 11-Jun-12 at 7:10 am | Permalink
Amitava: Ah, good old cultural paternalism, eh?
Good lord. *We* are part of a democratic state. The vast majority (96%) of voters in this democratic state eat beef. Horses are rarely eaten in the US. One of my guiding principles would be “minimize harm”. And unlike you, I extend that principle to animals. If *we*, as in the US, are going to eat cattle but not horses, then I would rather minimize harm to horses and treat them better than cattle. It seems that at least for now, enough Americans are willing to go along with the idea of treating horses better than cattle.
You, on the other hand, while espousing this “harm none” principle, you only apply it to humans and have zero regard for how animals are treated or mistreated. Your hypocricy meter somehow doesn’t get triggered by allowing harm to animals, so perhaps you should be a little more clear and reword it to say “harm no human, do whatever you want to nonhumans”. At least that way, people you are talking with don’t read more compassion into your “harm none” statement than is actually there.
But your moral compass is piqued by and takes issue with the fact that we do not allow horses to be treated like cattle. Pain isn’t the magnetic force that turns your compass needle. Logical Indifference is. It would be better, apparently, if people could be allowed to set any animal on fire and eat them as they cook alive than to draw some “arbitrary” line that says, no, that’s too much pain to inflict.
Your moral compass also seems perturbed by the idea that the state treats cattle different than horses. But the vast majority of americans eat beef, while eating horses is extremely rare. And the laws reflect that.
At which point, you shout “Hypocricy!”
The funny thing is, you don’t care about cattle or horses. Yet you can’t abide people eating one and protecting the other. It’d be like me not caring if you get up on the right or left side of your bed, but calling you a hypocrite if you always get up on the left side.
The problem is, you think you’re “logic” is the only “logical” way to look at things and everything else is “hypocricy”. And that is hubris.
Aside from the line “harm none”, I draw no lines.
“harm none” is not a line. It’s a principle. Someone could take “harm none” as a principle and draw the line on the abortion debate so as to allow abortion. Principles are not lines. A line is when you take some specific instance and say yes or no. So, you’re drawing lines every time you weigh in on some specific issue. Abortion. Taxes. Animal welfare. Adoption. Gay marriage. Whatever. Each time you weigh in for or against soemthing, you’re drawing a line.
This again is where you really do think your belief system is an absolute truth and absolute logic. Because you cannot seem to fathom that someone else could take your exact same principles and come to compeltely different conclusions. You think the only lines you’re drawing is “harm none” and “most permissive”. Those are actually prinicples, not lines. And you think your principles must logically lead to draw lines on specific issues exactly where you drew them.
I’m a big fan of “harm none”. But if someone were to pull a gun on me, I would cause harm in self defense. So, already, the principle of “harm none” isn’t a pure absolute for all instances like you think it is. If someone were to try to kill you, I would guess that you would be willing to inflict some harm in order to protect yourself. If so, then your principle isn’t actually “harm none”, but rather “minimize harm”. I’ve run into very few people who are true pacifists.
I’m a huge fan of the government being as permissive as possible. I support outlawing physical violence and physical theft because allowing it would be equivalent to anarchy. I support the idea of pre-emptive regulation that is specifically designed to prevent harm, such as requiring food be served with a certain level of safe handling. Without it, people would be harmed, and responding only after people are harmed when that harm is entirely preventable and workable is part of what I weigh when I decide to draw a line somewhere.
And I also support outlawing more complex behaviors that aren’t simple tit-for-tat scorekeeping. The prisoner’s dillemma describes more complex situations where individuals acting in their own self interest produce the worst possible outcome. Libertarians don’t even believe such a thing exists. They can’t even acknowledge the truth of the mathematics because it completely conflicts with their worldview.
And to bring it back to abortion, the idea of “minimize harm” has to decide whether a single cell fertilized egg is capable of being “harmed”. You say yes. I say no. As the pregnancy goes along, the ability to “harm” becomes something to be weighed against any harm to the mother. You decided that a single cell can be “harmed” and you decided that any harm to the mother is irrelevant. That’s where you drew several lines based on your principles of “minimize harm” and “be permissive”.
The thing that Libertarians can never seem to wrap their heads around is that their principles aren’t unique to their particular political view. I’d call myself a progressive and I hold to the principles of “Minimize harm” and “be permissive” and end up drawing lines in completely different places than you.
So, your principles aren’t “lines”. The lines you draw are how you take your principles and apply them to specific real world questions like abortion or animal welfare or any other specific occurrence.
Amitava D. | 15-Jun-12 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
Greg, you’ll have to pardon my absence over this past week, I’m in the midst of preparing for a new job.
“Good lord. *We* are part of a democratic state. The vast majority (96%) of voters in this democratic state eat beef. Horses are rarely eaten in the US. One of my guiding principles would be “minimize harm”. And unlike you, I extend that principle to animals.”
Eesh. The moment I wrote that, I was afraid that was the part you’d respond to.
So your rationale is “minimize harm”, and you would extend that to animals. Well and good. May I ask, then, in a completely non-caustic fashion, why you yourself don’t become vegetarian? In doing so you’d be doing something to minimize harm to animals even further.
“But the vast majority of americans eat beef, while eating horses is extremely rare. And the laws reflect that.” Ah, but I consider myself an individual before I consider myself part of the collective. If you support this legal discrepancy as a means of minimizing animal harm, then fine, I applaud you. Most Americans don’t seem to, however. They do so out of some idea that “horses mean more to us than cows, they’re a part of our heritage, blah blah blah”. Hey, speak for yourself buddy. *That* is enshrining cultural patrimony into law. Which actually brings me to a most interesting thing that I have learned. Imagine my surprise when, perusing this issue as is occasionally my wont, I find that as of last November, lo and behold, horse slaughter is once again legal here in the US!
http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/obama-legalizes-horse-slaughter-for-human/
Which somewhat changes the dynamics of the question which I had intended to once more put before you.
To wit: Why should I support any measure that would singularly outlaw horse slaughter, provided it is done in a humane manner? If you don’t like the idea of eating horse meat, then here’s a tip: don’t eat it or buy it. But can you give me one good reason why I should do anything to prevent someone else from doing so?
“The problem is, you think you’re “logic” is the only “logical” way to look at things and everything else is “hypocricy”.”
No. Again, “logic” is not my rubric, even if I try to make use of it in my beliefs: consistency is, as you’ve so aptly pointed out.
“A line is when you take some specific instance and say yes or no. So, you’re drawing lines every time you weigh in on some specific issue. Abortion. Taxes. Animal welfare. Adoption. Gay marriage.”
Exactly. You’ve illustrated my standpoint better than I could have myself, I daresay. The one “line/rule/law/whatever” that I believe inviolable is “do no harm/commit no aggression (against people, you nitpicker you!)”. The result being that save for abortion, obviously, in none of those issues which you enumerated would I restrict peoples’ behavior. *I wouldn’t make a law to begin with*.
“But if someone were to pull a gun on me, I would cause harm in self defense.” True, but that wouldn’t constitute aggression. And truth put to it, the pragmatist in me acknowledges that the best we can strive for is “minimize harm” rather than “absolutely prevent” it. As you might expect, I very strongly admire the schools of thought that emphasize absolute non-violence (eg Gandhi, Tolstoy) and view them as being the most consistently moral.
“I support the idea of pre-emptive regulation that is specifically designed to prevent harm, such as requiring food be served with a certain level of safe handling.” I would have less problem with this if it were done in such a way that made greater use of voluntariness and consent. In most aspects, however, I’d agree.
You’ve brought up things like the prisoner’s dilemma and tragedy of the commons on more than one occasion now. But could you please provide me with a real world example by which no active harm is done to a non-consenting adult, but you still believe the govt./authority may legitimately proscribe?
“And to bring it back to abortion, the idea of “minimize harm” has to decide whether a single cell fertilized egg is capable of being “harmed”. You say yes. I say no. ”
Firstly, I know I’m quibbling here, but will you please stop referring to *single celled* conceptuses (concepti?), if only because it’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand?
“Harm” is admittedly a subjective word. Just look at the debates regarding secondhand smoke, prostitution, spanking/corporal punishment and this is obvious. So instead of saying I believe the fetus has the right not to be harmed, how about I believe it has the right not to be killed? Its destruction, I think, is beyond dispute.
Greg | 15-Jun-12 at 9:02 pm | Permalink
Amitava: “why you yourself don’t become vegetarian? In doing so you’d be doing something to minimize harm to animals even further.”
Because I get no one’s perfect, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else. My goal isn’t perfection, or perfect logical consistency, because it’s impossible. And if you think you’re living life in a perfectly logical consistent manner, then my guess is you’re not looking closely enough.
I am satisfied with making the world a little better than when I came in. That is something I think I can actually deliver on. But perfect? No.
“They do so out of some idea that “horses mean more to us than cows, they’re a part of our heritage, blah blah blah”. Hey, speak for yourself buddy.”
I don’t understand why this bothers you other than you think they’re being irrational while you’re being perfectly rational. Which is ridiculous. If you’re a living, breathing, thinking, human being, you’ve got a big swath of irrational in you that is driving your decisions. We all do.
Why bother getting out of bed in the morning? It’s irrational. It’s more work than its worth. The energy we spend is always more than the energy we get back. The only reason we do is because we want to, because we are driven to live, which is a couple hundred thousand years (minimum) of evolutionary programming. The drive to procreate is irrational. The drive to live is irrational. Doesn’t make it bad. Doesn’t make it wrong.
Just because someone likes horses for some irrational reason doesn’t make them any more irrational than any other human who was driven to get themselves out of bed that morning.
“Why should I support any measure that would singularly outlaw horse slaughter, provided it is done in a humane manner?”
Clearly, you have no reason to. You’re a vegetarian, but for purely selfish reasons, not because of what it does to animals. I eat meat, but I care about animal welfare. Neither one of us wins any prizes in logical living.
But for me, I’d rather “minimize harm” be applied to animals to at least some extent.
You seem to immediately want to take it to its absolute end of zero harm to animals, but I never said that. I said minimize harm, not *minimal* harm. Reduce the harm from where it was when I got here. And maybe reduce it a little more from where it is now.
I’m talking about a relative shift, not some absolute measurement. Because we’ll never have an absolute.
“But can you give me one good reason why I should do anything to prevent someone else from doing so?”
For you? No. For me? I’d support it because it would minimize harm.
““I support the idea of pre-emptive regulation that is specifically designed to prevent harm, such as requiring food be served with a certain level of safe handling.” I would have less problem with this if it were done in such a way that made greater use of voluntariness and consent.”
You can’t have food safety be voluntary and still have it be preemptive. If its voluntary, then the number of people who follow it would plummet, and the number of people who get sick would skyrocket.
The thing is that most Libertarians think they can solve the Prisoner’s Dillemma by saying its an Iterated prisoner’s dillemma. i.e. If the seller tries to screw us, we should respond with a boycott. if they harm us, we should harm them by never doing business with them again.
But is severely naive. a lot of our transactions are with people we will never see again in our lives. Get in a cab and the guy takes the scenic route, but you’ll never see him again, so a boycott is pointless. People buy a car once every few years. People buy a house even more rarely. And some transactions are such that by the time failure occurs, a boycott is pointless, such as banks playing risky risk with savings accounts. By the time the crash comes, the damage is far greater than anything a boycott could inflict.
“But could you please provide me with a real world example by which no active harm is done to a non-consenting adult, but you still believe the govt./authority may legitimately proscribe?”
Well, it depends on what you mean by “active harm”. If a hotdog stand guy follows his own procedures rather than Safe-Serv procedures, and statistically more of his customers get sick than someone who follows Safe-Serv, is that “active harm”? I’d say yes. Libertarians usually say “no”.
If an activity doesn’t inflict harm, I generally don’t see a reason to regulate it. But to me, indirect harm is just as harmful as someone putting a gun to my face and pulling the trigger.
The example I gave before was FDIC. Uninsured bank accounts can be cheaper compared to insured accounts. So a bank might forego insurance if FDIC was voluntary (a perfect example of where “voluntariness” is not an option, because it allows harm.) and this would make them cheaper than the competititon that DID have insurance. And that natuarlly leads to a race to the bottom where no one has insurance. And then as soon as a run on one bank starts, they all have a run, and then the whole economy crashes.
That’s the Great Depression all over again. Libertarians have this completely illogical dogma that tells them that people have a “choice” about whether they want insurance or not, and this “choice” is driven by doing whats in their best interest. And an economic crash isn’t in their best interest, so people would never choose to put their money in a bank that didn’t have FDIC.
They might as well be talking about the transubtantiation that turns wine into blood. It’s complete nonsense, and doesn’t describe reality. It describes what a libertarian wants to believe: that total freedom always produces perfect results.
But it doesn’t. And the prisoner’s dilemma is irrefutable proof that unregulated choice can sometimes produce the worst possible outcome.
If you have an example of government regulation that doesn’t attempt to reduce harm, then maybe we could discuss something more specific that you had in mind.
“will you please stop referring to *single celled* conceptuses (concepti?), if only because it’s irrelevant to the discussion”
Why do you say its irrelevant? The whole uproar over stem cells was over the cells being taken from a blastocyst, as few as 50 to 150 cells. There is absolutely no way 50 cells is enough to have any subjective notion of pain or feelings, there is no way 50 cells can in any physical way resemble an adult human being. And yet, stem cell research was opposed because it “murdered” something made up of 100 cells.
The “morning after” pill has seen a similar uproar over a single fertilized egg for the last decade or so, and it’s still going on now. In 2010, the Washington State Pharmacy Board said that pharmacists have a right to refuse to give out the pill.
So, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about saying that a single cell fertilized egg is not relevant.
“how about I believe it has the right not to be killed?”
This comes preloaded with the implication that a single cell has rights. You keep saying how you are all about consistency and all that, but this implication is purely subjective, it’s something that comes purely from your subjective mind.
Logically speaking, its an unproven premise.
And its *fine* that your views of what we as a state should enforce on other people are based on your subjective, irrational drives. Just like its *fine* that some people have a thing for protecting horses. Just like I eat meat, but would like to keep harm to animals to a minimum.
It’s all irrational when you dig down to the deepest levels. What’s funny is how you point at someone who says “horses are part of our heritage” and laugh and say they’re being irrational hypocrites. But you say that a single cell fertilized egg has rights, which brings along with it an entire world of irrational, subjective meaning, and you think you’re being consistent and logical.
The only difference between you and the guy who likes horse heritage, is you can see the part of their thinking that is irrational, but you can’t see it in yourself. Saying a single cell has rights is not rational nor logical nor consistent. It is entirely subjective. It is driven by deep emotional thinking on your part.
Just like my wish to minimize harm is also driven by a deep emotional drive on my part. But I get the source of my view is emotional. You seem unable to see your emotional component for what it is. Instead, you relate to it as if it were the unmoved mover. It is a priori, and it is entirely subjective, but you relate to it as if it were proven empirically and objectively.
Your choice of language almost always avoids the observer. A perfect example of this is when you said: ““Harm” is admittedly a subjective word”
It’s a passive sentence. Just like saying “mistakes were made” is passive. But who made the mistakes? Who makes it subjective? You keep trying to remove yourself, your subjective contribution, from the equation, and act as if the objective world just happens to be what your subjective view holds it to be.
Granting rights to a single cell is an act of an individual. It isn’t something given by the objective world. It’s something you do. But whenever you talk about it, you always seem to relate to it as if it were just how the world is, rather than it is something you contribute to it, something you created, something subjective that you added to the objective world.
Amitava D. | 16-Jun-12 at 5:23 am | Permalink
“My goal isn’t perfection, or perfect logical consistency, because it’s impossible.”
Of course. This is a bone of contention I have with the more radical elements of animal rights activists. If you want to live in such a fashion that doesn’t harm *any* living thing, well, better go live in a cave and become a fruitarian. I respect your desire to minimize harm. I’m merely pointing out that giving up meat would go a great deal further towards this goal. (I’ll also say that I hope you purchase your food very conscientiously (eg cage free, free range, grass fed, etc) if minimizing harm to animals is a concern of yours). You must acknowledge though, in your case, that your choice is driven not *just* by a goal to minimize harm, but by an element of sentiment as well, in this case towards horses?
“I don’t understand why this bothers you other than you think they’re being irrational while you’re being perfectly rational. ”
Firstly, rationality is not my sine qua non here, consistency is. Secondly, what bothers me is not the lack of consistency, its the presumption on the part of the speaker that he/she gets to define for me what my culture and heritage ought to be. Look, in following this debate people who want horse slaughter outlawed generally fall into two camps. One is motivated by the cruelty and suffering that they see as being inherent in the industry. Fine, that’s something I’m willing to discuss, I have not a word to say against them making that argument. But the other is essentially “Real Americans don’t eat horses!” (actually a comment on that page I linked you to), in the likes of T Boone Pickens. To which my response is “Goddamit, that’s not your decision to make!” Real Americans eat hot dogs and hamburgers. Real Americans drink beer. Real Americans oppose gun control. Real Americans don’t watch faggoty foreign films. On the whole it’s a sentiment I find rather aggravating.
“Just because someone likes horses for some irrational reason doesn’t make them any more irrational than any other human who was driven to get themselves out of bed that morning.”
Very true. But that doesn’t give them the right to make me share their sentiment.
“And some transactions are such that by the time failure occurs, a boycott is pointless”
Yes, but unless the transaction took place with a clear caveat emptor in place, ie under false premises, then that’s something that I’d agree would be legally sanctionable (ie fraud).
“Libertarians have this completely illogical dogma that tells them that people have a “choice” about whether they want insurance or not, and this “choice” is driven by doing whats in their best interest. And an economic crash isn’t in their best interest, so people would never choose to put their money in a bank that didn’t have FDIC.”
Ah, ma cher, you preempted me! On that last part I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Some would avail themselves of the cheaper but riskier institutions, on that we are agreed. The question is “how many”? And I guess there’s really only one way to find out (which is why I suppose, if this is pretty high up on your priority list, you’ll do anything to keep Ron Paul out of office, eh?)
“If you have an example of government regulation that doesn’t attempt to reduce harm, then maybe we could discuss something more specific that you had in mind.” I don’t know if I could find a regulation that’s so, er, whimsical. But minimizing harm often comes at a cost to liberty. Generally speaking, I’ve found regulations fall into three categories: 1. They keep people from harming each other, 2. They keep people from harming themselves, and 3. They ensure people help other people. I don’t have a problem with 1, but with 2 and 3 as you might expect, I do. For example, in many states motorcyclists are required to wear helmets. The rationale being if they get into an accident, they’ll do more harm to themselves, and we the taxpayers well might end up footing the bill for their care. Well and good. But what if we had in place a system whereby every motorcyclist was given the option of either wearing a helmet, or signing a legal document upon receiving his license that he/she might go unhelmeted, but in the event of an accident only he/she could be held liable for their health costs? In this situation the objection becomes “We can’t let people take such risks to begin with, we’re doing this for their own good”. As you can see, I have a problem with that. Smoking being banned in private establishments is another example.
“there is no way 50 cells can in any physical way resemble an adult human being.”
Are you saying that humanity is something that should be decided by physical resemblance? Because I’ll tell you, a week old infant resembles a 14 week old fetus more than it resembles you or I.
“The “morning after” pill has seen a similar uproar over a single fertilized egg for the last decade or so, and it’s still going on now. In 2010, the Washington State Pharmacy Board said that pharmacists have a right to refuse to give out the pill.
So, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about saying that a single cell fertilized egg is not relevant.”
Look, I’ll state this as plainly as I can. Abortion doesn’t involve a single-celled conceptus. Never. It cannot, by definition. I don’t know the specifics of the morning-after pill law that you described, but if it’s a morning-after pill that they’re talking about, then it’s probably not an abortifacent but a contraceptive (to which I have no objection) or a contragestive (to which I have a different objection).
“But you say that a single cell fertilized egg has rights, which brings along with it an entire world of irrational, subjective meaning, and you think you’re being consistent and logical…Granting rights to a single cell is an act of an individual. It isn’t something given by the objective world. It’s something you do.”
No more subjective than saying slaves or, going further back, Indians were humans.
You know, the idea of “natural rights” is actually one that I’m not entirely comfortable with. From a purely pragmatic perspective, it would seem self-evident that “rights” only exist insofar as we as a society choose to extend them.
“Saying a single cell has rights is not rational nor logical nor consistent. It is entirely subjective. It is driven by deep emotional thinking on your part.”
Again, I’m not saying a fetus has inalienable rights, any more than you or I do. What I’m saying is that it’s a human organism; upon this point I don’t think you’ll find a single doctor or biologist in dispute. And part of my *subjective* framework and outlook is the belief, as described, of non-aggression. And part and parcel of this is the belief that every human has the right not to be arbitrarily killed (which is why I brought up the artificial uteri, eh, last month?)
“You keep trying to remove yourself, your subjective contribution, from the equation, and act as if the objective world just happens to be what your subjective view holds it to be.”
It’s true I do try and keep emotion out of debates, since in my experience it’s easier to get people to listen to you, and inevitably they start to talk past each other if a discussion gets heated. I want to communicate and learn by speaking with you, rather than blast your idiocy into cinders with my awesome, flawless wisdom. I have opinions on which I base my beliefs and actions, and I’ll readily admit they’re fully subjective. I described them at some point I remember; here they are again, somewhat succinctly: I value liberty over one’s physical well-being, I value negative rights over positive rights, and I believe aggression is always an evil thing.
Amitava D. | 16-Jun-12 at 11:16 am | Permalink
Mea culpa, upon rereading what I wrote, I should have written “saying slaves or, going further back, Indians were people” (although in the case of Indians I think the debate centered more upon the question of whether or not they had souls. Now there’s an utterly rationalistic debate for you!)
Greg | 18-Jun-12 at 10:05 am | Permalink
Amitava: “This is a bone of contention I have with the more radical elements of animal rights activists. If you want to live in such a fashion that doesn’t harm *any* living thing, well, better go live in a cave and become a fruitarian. I respect your desire to minimize harm. I’m merely pointing out that giving up meat would go a great deal further towards this goal.”
I note that while you are able to acknowledge a lack of perfection in others, and while you are able to point out a lack of perfection in my thinking, you didn’t provide an example of your own imperfection.
“Firstly, rationality is not my sine qua non here, consistency is.”
Whether it is “rationality” or “consistency”, the problem is you think you’re implementing it perfectly. The thing you continusously avoid is just how much of your “consistency” is your own ad-hoc interpretation of what is and is not “rational” or “consistent”, or whatever you want to call it.
I keep trying to tell you that you are drawing “lines” all over the place. And you keep acting as if you only draw one line (“consistency”) and acting as if everything you do after you chose consistency is nothing more than infalible implementation.
The idea that a single cell has any rights whatsoever is purely your doing. It isn’t anything attached to “consistency”. It isn’t anything attached to any kind of objective reality. It is something YOU bring to the conversation. It is something YOU insist be the moral interpretation of your version of consistency.
And yet, you never acknowedge it as your own subjective interpretation. You just say you’re all about “consistency”, and you think every other position you adopt is nothing more than an outcome of that “consistencty” position.
IT. IS. NOT.
This isn’t about me trying to convince you to my point of view. This isn’t about me trying to convince you to give up your point of view. This is just me trying to tell you that you are no were near as “consistent” as you think. I don’t have a problem with your position. But in trying to discuss them with you, you seem incapable of introspection here. YOu seem incapable of seeing your own subjective contribution to your position is far more complex than just combining “harm none” and “be consistent” and jumping to the completely unconnected assertion that a single cell fertilized egg has rights of any kind.
“You must acknowledge though, in your case, that your choice is driven not *just* by a goal to minimize harm, but by an element of sentiment as well, in this case towards horses?”
See. That right there. You’re perfectly willing to assume that there is some kind of “sentimentality” or irrationality or something illogical in MY point of thinking. And yet, no where in this entire thread have you ever acknowleged that “harm none” is one level, “be consistent” is a second level, and “single cell fertilized eggs have rights” is a completely unrelated third level that you brougt in on your part.
The first two is unconnected to the third. I hold to “minimize harm” and I prefer rational over irrational, but I don’t give single cell fertilized eggs the level of rights that you do.
You think I must be sentimental about horses, that there must be another level to my point of view that would have me treat horses differently, but you can’t see that’s exactly what you’re doing about a fertilized egg.
“I don’t know the specifics of the morning-after pill law that you described, but if it’s a morning-after pill that they’re talking about, then it’s probably not an abortifacent but a contraceptive (to which I have no objection) or a contragestive (to which I have a different objection)”
You don’t know what the morning after pill is???
There has been disputes as to whether it prevents a single cell fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall or whether it actually will cause an attached fertilized egg to *detach* from the uterine wall.
What it does or doesn’t do is not my point. My point is that people have gotten themselves worked up into a moral tizzy over a single cell fertilized egg potentially being “aborted”.
Same goes for stem cell research. The cells are taken from something that has multiplied into 50 to 150 cells.
In both cases, neither a single fertilized egg nor 100 or so cells can feel anything, think anything, want anything, or maintain any kind of subjective thought.
“Again, I’m not saying a fetus has inalienable rights, any more than you or I do. What I’m saying is that it’s a human organism; upon this point I don’t think you’ll find a single doctor or biologist in dispute. And part of my *subjective* framework and outlook is the belief, as described, of non-aggression. And part and parcel of this is the belief that every human has the right not to be arbitrarily killed (which is why I brought up the artificial uteri, eh, last month?)”
Saying “a single cell fertilized egg is human” and then saying “every human has the right not be be arbitarily killed” then adding that up and saying “fertilized eggs should not be arbitrarily killed” is your own subjective math. It isn’t objective. One does not neccessarily come from the other.
You keep relating to this as if all you’re doing is saying “1+1=2″. But what you’re really doing is more like “How much does god weigh?” => “6 pounds of flax”. You’re talking about pins and mass/volume, and then coming to the conclusion that 42 angels can fit on the head of a pin.
It’s nowhere near as linear/logical as you think it is.
“I don’t know if I could find a regulation that’s so, er, whimsical. But minimizing harm often comes at a cost to liberty.”
Oh no you didn’t.
This is standard Libertarian Propaganda 101. Everything a Libertarian agrees to regulate is just hunky-dorey fine. Eveyrthing else is infringing on someone’s liberty.
If you’re going to pull this on me, you’re not actually taking part in a two-way conversation here. And I have no interest in having a moral conversation with someone incapable of introspection.
“It’s true I do try and keep emotion out of debates”
(head-desk)
See. That right there. You think I’m protecting horses out of “sentimentality” but you think you’re being the rational, logical, unemotional, objective, non-subjective person here.
The problem is that you have some seriously negative opinions about “emotions” to the point that you’ve removed as many as you can and denied a whole bunch of them even exist in you when they’re clearly visible to others.
“I have opinions on which I base my beliefs and actions, and I’ll readily admit they’re fully subjective. I described them at some point I remember; here they are again, somewhat succinctly: I value liberty over one’s physical well-being, I value negative rights over positive rights, and I believe aggression is always an evil thing.”
I get that’s what you think you’re doing. But its not what you’re doing. You granting rights to a fertilized egg is not a mathematical extension of the above premises. You granting rights to a fertilized egg is another premise. It isn’t an outcome of anything else. It is part of your moral compass, and you’re just reporting which way its pointing.
You think the only “subjective” bits your morality is based on is “I value liberty over one’s physical well-being, I value negative rights over positive rights, and I believe aggression is always an evil thing.” and you act as if *everything* else you believe falls logically out of extending those subjective bits to their natural conclusions.
I could adopt that very same list and come to a different conclusion about abortion. I pretty much do. The thing is, I realize that my view on abortion is yet another subjective aspect of my moral compass. You think your view on abortion is the only possible valid outcome of your moral premises.
But you seem to dislike the idea of emotion so much that you’ve convinced yourself that the only “emotional” or “subjective” piece of your morality are a handful of rudimentary rules that are so generic that almost everyone could agree with them in principle, and yet everyone would likely implement them differently than you.
Amitava D. | 23-Jun-12 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
“I note that while you are able to acknowledge a lack of perfection in others, and while you are able to point out a lack of perfection in my thinking, you didn’t provide an example of your own imperfection.”
Regarding what issue? Which animals deserve special status? I’m not sure how there can be any logical imperfections to my stance, since I don’t accept animal rights to begin with. It’s not that my opinion is imperfect, it’s irrelevant. Although now that you’ve brought it up, here’s an inconsistency of mine for you: I probably wouldn’t be too opposed to preventing the use of animal testing for cosmetics and clothing. How ‘bout that? Doubtless were I to suddenly find myself governor tomorrow, a good many more would crop up. (Hey, I’m also not a pacifist, remember?) Although I’ll also say that in none of these cases would I say my position was ethically justified. War, for example, is something that I see as fundamentally evil. And yet, in certain circumstances, I might even support conscription. In that scenario, however, I wouldn’t say that it was “right” or “justified”. The most I could say, given a set of objectives, is that it was “necessary”.
“The idea that a single cell has any rights whatsoever is purely your doing. It isn’t anything attached to “consistency”. It isn’t anything attached to any kind of objective reality.”
I’ve acknowledged that what you said is correct. I’ve never said that “a conceptus has rights” is an objective, absolute statement. I believe it to be true, obviously, and would like to see rights legally extended to them; but be that as it may, the *any* concept of rights is non-objective; rights don’t exist of their own accord, they exist only insofar as we choose to grant them.
“There has been disputes as to whether it prevents a single cell fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall or whether it actually will cause an attached fertilized egg to *detach* from the uterine wall.”
Cite please? This is most interesting, to the furthest extent of my knowledge emergency contraceptions all work by preventive measures. Perhaps that issue in Washington pertained to RU-486? I’m genuinely curious to know where you learned of the emergency contraception mechanism debate, btw. Even taking that to be the case, however, from what you’ve described it doesn’t sound like the conceptus is killed, but expelled and allowed then to die.
“In both cases, neither a single fertilized egg nor 100 or so cells can feel anything, think anything, want anything, or maintain any kind of subjective thought.”
We don’t know any of those things, although I am of the same opinion. In any case, they are human organisms. That is an objective statement and beyond dispute. I believe a “human organism”=”person”, which is an entirely subjective statement and, obviously, subject to enormous dispute.
““fertilized eggs should not be arbitrarily killed” is your own subjective math. It isn’t objective. One does not neccessarily come from the other.”
Of course it’s subjective. Again, this devolves to the idea of rights, which are inherently non-objective.
“(head-desk)
See. That right there. You think I’m protecting horses out of “sentimentality” but you think you’re being the rational, logical, unemotional, objective, non-subjective person here.
Eesh. I see I haven’t done a good job making myself understood. I was referring to the actual carrying on of the discussion, eg tone of voice, choice of words. I try not to write emotively when carrying forth with a discussion, as you have rather noted. I do this not because it’s “better” or “purer” but because I find people tend to get more easily distracted when anger seeps into an argument (this recollects the debate on Scalzi’s blog about the utility of “calling a bigot a bigot”. I didn’t say anything there, but in my experience if you’re interested in substantively engaging a homophobe, saying “your attitude is prejudiced” has a great deal more utility than saying “you’re a hateful asshole”, as much as one may derive satisfaction from the latter. But I’ll admit there are times when I’ve allowed my emotions to show their heels to my better judgment. In fact one such instance pertained to you, my dear sir! Again on Scalzi’s blog, you had made some statement to someone else along the lines of “you don’t get to tell someone to jump just because you’re the bossman”, and I interjected some snide “witticism” comparing you to Eugene Debs or something. Yeahhh…
“I get that’s what you think you’re doing. But its not what you’re doing. You granting rights to a fertilized egg is not a mathematical extension of the above premises. You granting rights to a fertilized egg is another premise.”
Well, no. If a fetus is a person (and that if is *the* if of the issue), then outlawing abortion would fit rather clearly into the “non-aggression” & “negative rights” column.
“I could adopt that very same list and come to a different conclusion about abortion. I pretty much do.”
Do you really? I would imagine that you support such things are a right to an education, or a living wage.
“This isn’t about me trying to convince you to my point of view. This isn’t about me trying to convince you to give up your point of view.”
And I’m not trying to convince you of the righteousness of my own position, or convert you to the pro-life camp. You know, I think I ought to take the opportunity to explain myself. The genesis of my desire to engage in this discussion, and why from the get-go I placed such emphasis on “rationality”, was not meant to impugn your capacity for reason. It was because you made this statement on Scalzi’s blog (to someone else):
You’re saying a single fertilized egg is a “little human”? And abortion of even a fertilized egg is some form of “murder”?
The note of incredulity in that question immediately led me to believe that you were implying that pro-life=religious, that no clearheaded, objective, rational, secular person could oppose legalized abortion. You’ll forgive me for making the assumption, I hope, and endeavouring so fervently to disabuse you of it; it’s a preconception I’ve run into again and again and again from pro-choice individuals (although in all fairness far too many in the pro-life camp do absolutely nothing to dissuade this, with their incessant obsession on “God/Jesus/Bible”. It drives me positively to distraction, not because it’s exclusive or non-productive, but because it’s *irrelevant*. Yes, America is by the numbers a Christian country. BUT NOT ALL AMERICANS ARE CHRISTIAN, DAMMIT! If you’re speaking outside of an explicitly Christian venue, then why are you still preaching to the choir?)
Amitava D. | 23-Jun-12 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
“AS a right to an education” not “are a right”, I meant to say.
Also, the comparison was actually to Bill Haywood. You had said “And you sure as hell don’t get to say “I shouldn’t have to do any of this, if you don’t like what I do as bossman, go work somewhere else”,
to which I issued the priceless (and of course utterly non-emotional) rejoinder
“Bossman, heh. Just love the turn-of-the-century agitation language, with all its frenzied angst; very Bill Haywood. Bravo, Greg, bravo!”
Again, yeahhh…
Amitava D. | 24-Jun-12 at 8:17 am | Permalink
Oh and one more thing, please disregard that statement pertaining to neg vs pos rights, as upon rereading it I see you were referring specifically to abortion.
Greg | 24-Jun-12 at 7:06 pm | Permalink
Amitava: ““I’d rather a thousand die before a single man is forced against his will to help them”.”
Amitava: “I don’t think we should be legally obliged to look after the welfare of strangers.”
Amitava: “I might even support conscription. In that scenario, however, I wouldn’t say that it was “right” or “justified”. The most I could say, given a set of objectives, is that it was “necessary”.”
I think this is a signpost that says we’re done.
Amitava: “If a fetus is a person (and that if is *the* if of the issue), then outlawing abortion would fit rather clearly into the “non-aggression” & “negative rights” column.”
If a fetus is a person? Go here and grep for the phrase “That’s not an argument; it’s a conditional statement.”
This is your subjective premise, the thing you keep saying is true, and upon which you base your entire moral stand against abortion. And yet, “if a fetus is a person” isn’t something that you’ve proven.
“a fetus is a person” is dogma.
Amitava: “The note of incredulity in that question immediately led me to believe that you were implying that pro-life=religious, that no clearheaded, objective, rational, secular person could oppose legalized abortion.”
I was implying that with regards to a single cell fertilized egg, pro-life==dogmatic, not religious. You’re not religious. But you’re dogmatic.
“a single cell fertilized egg is a person with rights” is a wholly dogmatic position.
70 posts back and forth, and you’ve never understood this. It’s one of the “lines” you drew in the moral sand. It’s your own subjective interpretation that you use as a *premise* to the rest of your morality. A *premise*, not a conclusion. It is where your moral compass already points.
I’ve been trying to get you to introspect about this specific point of your moral system, But after 70 posts back and forth you have not once been able to address it as anything more than a “truth”. You have not been able to question this point even once. You have been able to hedge your words by invoking it with conditional statements, but you have never questioned the truth of it. Because it is dogmatic truth to you. It is not something you can question. It’s like water to a fish or “fire is hot” to you. It is beyond questioning.
You want to talk about “sentimentality” towards not eating horses? What do you think has given you this dogmatic position that a single cell fertilized egg is a person with rights if not anything but sentimentality?
And again, 70 posts back and forth, and you cannot see this about yourself. You have not once exhibited an ability to perform introspection, to look in on yourself, to examine your moral compass and question what makes it point the way it points.
And to me, introspection, is the only thing that makes a moral discussion worth having. And after 70 posts and… holy shit… 35,000 words… back and forth, you’ve not once shown any interest in introspection about whether or not a fetus is a person with rights. It is simply a given for you.
Which is fine, but not a conversation I have any interest in having. And that is the biggest signpost of all that this conversation has hit every last possible dead end, and can go no further.
Amitava D. | 01-Jul-12 at 7:21 am | Permalink
“If a fetus is a person? Go here and grep for the phrase “That’s not an argument; it’s a conditional statement.”
Note the key word “if”.
“This is your subjective premise, the thing you keep saying is true…And yet, “if a fetus is a person” isn’t something that you’ve proven.”"
I’ve never said that fetal personhood is truth. I’ve never sought to prove it. The only statement I’ve made that I’d say had any truth value is that “a fetus is a human organism.” It is upon that that my position is ultimately predicated. I don’t like using terms like “person” and “murder” because they’re subjective and malleable, which is why I’ve tried to strenuously avoid making explicit statements that incorporate them (I’d wager I’ve never said “A fetus is a person” or “Abortion is murder”).
“You have been able to hedge your words by invoking it with conditional statements, but you have never questioned the truth of it. Because it is dogmatic truth to you.”
Every moral code is ultimately subjective and dogmatic (that last, at least, if it is to be applied consistently). I’m fine with that. However, if by dogmatic you mean that I unthinkingly follow a given code simply on account of having been told to, having been raised that way, or whatever, then I’d have to beg to differ.
“You have not once exhibited an ability to perform introspection, to look in on yourself, to examine your moral compass and question what makes it point the way it points.”
You might be interested to know that I was pretty fervently pro-choice up until I was 16 or 17 (it was my junior year of high school, I know), and it wasn’t up until a little over 6 years ago that I became decidedly pro-life. This is a subject to which I have indeed devoted considerable thought and reflection.
“You want to talk about “sentimentality” towards not eating horses?”
Well I see, after having discoursed upon the subject with you, that yours is not a position based upon sentiment. You have a defined purpose (minimize suffering to the greatest extent practicable) which seems to form the foundation of your position. Perhaps you might be heartened to know that California, as of today, has banned the production of foie gras.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinion/sunday/foie-gras-a-faux-pas.html
“The law’s critics say gavage is hardly more stress-inducing than the many other things humans do to the animals they eat. The corporate operations that grow and slaughter pigs, poultry and cattle represent animal cruelty on an immense scale, they say, about which the foie gras ban does nothing.
But the law’s supporters argue that even small steps toward humaneness are important…”
I immediately thought of our discussion when I read that.
Anyway, I will again emphasize: I would never seek to posit as a truth statement that “a fetus is a person with rights.” I would say that because a fetus is a human organism, I believe it *should* be accorded rights as a person.
I’m sorry if this conversation has proved to be a source of frustration for you; my own interest in such things is to ascertain the “why” and “how” of a disagreement between two well-informed parties, the actual nidus, as it were, of the discord. You place a great deal of value upon introspection; I would be curious to know whether this discussion has engendered any within yourself?
Well anyway Greg, I hope I’ve provided a satisfactory response. I don’t know if you’ll see this or not, but feel free to ignore it, or if you’d like to have the last word, you need but say so and I’ll not respond. It’s been an engaging intercourse, in any event!
All the best,
Amitava
Drachefly | 03-Aug-12 at 9:35 am | Permalink
Greg, I just wanted to say, I think your post on the Whatever of July 31st at 3:46 was excellent. Both on content and on conciseness.
Taking a look at it this way would have been a big step up in the ‘actually solving the problem’ department for many people.
Greg | 09-Aug-12 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
*Amitava*: Every moral code is ultimately subjective and dogmatic
No. It’s not.
The only way that would be true is if you were willing to engage in rhetoric like “What does the word ‘is’ really mean?”.
Otherwise, “harm” is not subjective. It might be measured in a million different shades because some harm is worse than others, but that makes it relative, not subjective and dogmatic.
But the law’s supporters argue that even small steps toward humaneness are important…”
Yep. It’s better to improve things a little bit and be inconsistent (add protection to one species while leaving another unprotected), than to demand consistency and oppose a small improvement because it it’s inconsistent.
*Drachefly*: I think your post on the Whatever of July 31st at 3:46 was excellent.
This?
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/07/31/readercon-harassment-etc/#comment-345342
Thanks. Bruce Schneier’s book is extremely good. The guy is a genius. Highly recommend the book.
I think the way he describes innuendo explains perfectly why people generally don’t tell a creeper to fuck off on the first syllable. Because there might have been a misunderstanding.
I was just at a party a few days ago that had a rather large argument erupt. People were shouting, crying, all sorts of stuff. And at some point, folks calmed down enough that they could get beyond the emotional reactions they were having, and everyone saw that the two things that caused the argument in the first place were both misinterpreted by the other person. Things were pretty much cleared up by the end of the night, but that’s partly because the people involved were mature enough to hear the other person rather than insist that their emotional reaction and their interpretation must reflect the other person’s intent.
There’s clearly a need for humans as social creatures to allow for this misunderstanding and clear it up via innuendo and indirect conversation.
But I think once the purpose of this innuendo is understood, then folks can get that it’s no longer needed once it becomes clear the other person is intentionally disregarding their wishes.
i.e. Someone leaning into your personal space might be just a misunderstanding or something other than harrassment. So, it makes sense to respond/correct indirectly, perhaps simply by backing up. But once the person had demonstrated that it’s not a misunderstanding, then something direct is sufficient, like, “no, go away”.
I think Genevieve Valentine handled things about as perfectly as it could be handled. Her first response to a weird remark was to be polite and remove herself. THe next time, he grabbed her and said something lewd, his intentions were clear and there was no misunderstanding to be had and she was very direct with a “No, you don’t get to touch me”.
It seems like everyone else just dropped the ball after that. It’s too bad things had to get so bad around this.
Greg | 05-Sep-12 at 6:54 am | Permalink
htom, if you want to discuss this on warhw, I can create a new thread. If not, I’ll let it alone.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/08/21/todd-akin/#comment-358259
htom: Taxes don’t have to be a Ponzi scheme (although they could become one.) I don’t think of them as theft unless they actually are. Supposedly, you get immediate value (not promises of increased value a long way down the road) for what’s collected. Roads, bridges, … military. Schools.
I think the claim that taxes must provide an “immediate value” or its theft or some sort of scam is unfounded.
One of my favorite government programs is FDIC. Banks pay money in, and get ZERO benefit unless they collapse and need the insurance. The benefit is the opposite of “immediate”. It’s way, way, way delayed. It’s insurance, not a scam, not a ponzi scheme.
htom: that’s where and when I first heard that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme, from an Econ professor. I’ll guess half of the class never did believe him. Too much faith in government, even though they were protesting that very government.
Well, protesting America’s involvement in Vietnam does not condemn everything American nor everything related to the American government. This is a hasty generalization fallacy.
As to whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme or not, I think if we can’t agree that tax doesn’t need “immediate benefit”, then we’re already at an impasse and Social Security is three road-blocks from where we are now.
htom | 05-Sep-12 at 9:17 am | Permalink
OK, Stevie, what -is- a Ponzi scheme, in your world?
htom | 05-Sep-12 at 9:24 am | Permalink
That’s the general description of insurance; you pay in and hope to have no need to make a claim.
Social Security you pay in and hope to live long enough to collect payments in retirement from the “investment” you’d made. No, the scheme is that those working when you retire will pay. Either as a direct transfer of funds, or the power of the federal government to tax and repay the Social Security funds previously “invested”.
Greg | 05-Sep-12 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
“those working when you retire will pay”
I don’t see an inherent “this is beyond the scope of govenment” problem with this approach.
Government grants for going to college are based on the idea that college means you’ll have a higher income and as a result pay higher taxes. So, someone paid for my college grants with their taxes. And I’ve been paying for other people’s grants with my taxes.
I’m not seeing the problem. But maybe you have a problem with government grants for college?
(ps: I’ll push this to a new thread tonight)
Greg | 05-Sep-12 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
I think a ponzi scheme is quite distinct from Social Security. A ponzi scheme cannot be maintained indefinitely because the promised return on investment requires more and more investors to put money into the scheme.
Social Security isn’t promising a “return on investment” or at least not the exhorbinant sort of ROI that a Ponzi scheme is driven by to find new investors.
If you want to shoe-horn Social Security into a Ponzi-Scheme setup, then it’s a Ponzi Scheme by it’s physical structure, HOWEVER it has such extremely small return on investment such that it isn’t driven to implode the way a ponzi scheme implodes.
If I promise you 20% return on investment in a month, you give me a hundred bucks, I give you $20 bucks a month later and convince you to roll the rest over. I now have $80 and can do this for a couple more months before it implodes. If I find more investors, they put in more money, I give them %20 back, and give you another %20, and no one is the wiser that the system is unsustainable. Once everyone is in the system, there is no new money coming in, and the system cannot sustain itself.
Because of the promised %20 return on investment every month, for every investor, the system must eventually implode over the long run.
Social Security isn’t like that. It doesn’t promise 20% return on investment, it only pays out after people hit retirement, it pays out for a short period compared to the time spent paying it.
It doesn’t implode because it breaks even over the long run.
The only problem with social security right now is the baby boom is going to put more people into retirement than usual. And that could be fixed by increasing the limit to how much people pay in every year or some other adjustment so that it works out to a break even system, and then readjust after teh baby boom generation dies off.
Greg | 05-Sep-12 at 6:21 pm | Permalink
Fresh thread here:
http://www.warhw.com/2012/09/05/social-security-ponzi-schemes-and-taxes/