|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2001 : 13:16:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Personal ethics may disagree with societal morals and it is the conflict of these which drive societal and personal change. It is for that reason that rationalizing any decision in order to present it to others is nessassary
I almost agreed, but find that I have to ultimately disagree. The rationalization is only necessary if one of the parties debating the issue does not subscribe to the theory that morality (maybe I should say ethics--I'm not sure) has as its source either might or majority. If both have this opinion, then rationalization is extraneous and irrelevant. Or am I missing something?
(I'll get to other points as my brain wraps around 'em).
My kids still love me.
When looking at the rationalization of the decision, I was assuming differing viewpoints. If the viewpoints on the decision are congruent, rationalization for the purpose of presentation looses it's importance. However, these morals have to be presented to an audience of questioners (children). Those questioners will want to know why it is they are believing a moral. "Because I said so" doesn't work after a certain age. (They also deserve a better answer when they reach that age.)
After re-reading your post, I realize your statement could be interpreted two ways. One as the sides of an issue have congruent views on the subject of the moral. And one where the sides have differences of opinion on the moral but one of those sides has might or majority on their side. In the passage above, I answered the former issue. Now, I will answer the latter.
Rationalization on both sides for a moral is still nessassary in the case of a majority or mighty minority on one side. The reason being, that the people on one side are trying to convince the other side that their way is more right than the other. Even one person with a convincing arguement, can change a moral. Also, if an armed conflict arrises due to the difference in morals across societies, one must be able to convince people that it is worthwhile to fight for that cause. In this case, the US lost that moral backing in Vietnam. The backlash from it convinced elected leaders to discontinue that conflict. King John lost the moral backing of his nobles, who then forced him to sign the Magna Carta and the morals of that time were overturned. The need to believe that morals are right and just drives the make up of those morals.
In either case, rationalization of the reasons why a moral exists is used to overturn or defend a particular moral. Up here in Illinois, it is difficult to get 1000 Cheeseheads to decide where the Packers should play. There are disenters on every moral out there.
|
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 18:15:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
2. I don't see them as a source of morality because if they are, the implication is that there are NO societal or species-wide morals which, I think, leads back to the idea of might making right. Still off the top o' me head, though, so could be wrong, eh?
If a bunch of individuals, well, individually determine that one certain thing is "moral" in their view, independent of what each other think, does this affect your implication above?
When I start to think about this stuff, I always imagine, "What if there are only two people in the entire universe? How would "morals" look in this situation?" Or how about, "What if there were only ONE person in the entire universe?" Would all the "morals" that necessarily involve interaction between two or more people still be "morals"? And how does the argument for "absolute morals" that necessarily involve the interaction of two or more people survive in this situation?
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/23/2001 18:16:23 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 19:11:09 [Permalink]
|
Only two people in the universe? Or one? Where do morals come from? We are taught them, either directly by our parents, or from observing society and the effect certain actions have etc. Morals do not exist in such a vacuum. Why are morals even necessary in a one person universe. I don't think they are.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2001 : 19:15:50 [Permalink]
|
when birth occurs, with or without the dr's help, then we have a real human being. before that its a part of the mother.
ancient romans felt that post-natal abortion was always a legitimate option for the father. ancient jews did too acording to leviticus, where it instructed fathers to have disobedient children stoned to death, not to mention non-virgin brides. love thoase biblical values.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 00:37:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Only two people in the universe? Or one? Where do morals come from? We are taught them, either directly by our parents, or from observing society and the effect certain actions have etc. Morals do not exist in such a vacuum. Why are morals even necessary in a one person universe. I don't think they are.
@tomic
''Why are morals even necessary in a one person universe?''
Wow! That's very profound. Like if a tree falls..........
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 08:03:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
the immorality of inflicting gratuitous suffering on a sentient being
(Does "gratuitous" fit here?)
I think so, in the sense of “completely unnecessary.”
quote:
Do you consider a baby "sentient"?
In the Webster's primary sense, “responsive to or conscious of sense impressions,” absolutely.
quote:
This may be a new thread I'd like to start, but I'm not sure where to put it... About when a human becomes "sentient", and about inflicting pain, and how it differs from fetuses and babies, and animals, and how this impacts "morality".
Good questions all, some factual, others moral. Easy answers are not forthcoming.
quote:
Circumcision would be a good example to discuss. Is it immoral, when the baby is maybe, arguably, not necessarily "self-aware", and doesn't remember the pain anyway? Is the memory of pain what is really "immoral" about infliction of it, or is it the actual infliction?
I do think circumcision immoral in that it involves the gratuitous infliction of great suffering upon a sentient baby.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2002 : 12:18:38 [Permalink]
|
I find alarming that people think that their unfounded believe about something they call a human 'soul' should influence others who do not share that paticular believe.
Vitabilty is a difficult criterium. Just because somebody can't survive without outside help does not mean that he does not have the right to. Where do you draw the line? As our medical science advances we can keep earlier and earlier forms of human beings alive ouside the womb.
About sentinece being a factor. How do you measure it what do you do when you find out that an adult dolphin, shimp or even a dog is much closer to your ideal of a sentinent being than a newborn baby? What about those people at the other and of live who have lost their sentinece and are after an accident or though ilness pushed beneath the level that makes a human sentinent?
I doubt that this is something that can be easily genralized and answered in a few words.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2002 : 13:28:10 [Permalink]
|
Euthansia is a different subject from abortion, therefore is completely unrelated.
Here's the thing. As things currently stand, there is no assumption of rights for a fetus. Though, Bush and his lot are back at attempting to do this. Anyway, a fetus only has the potential to become a baby. However, brain waves are a measurable phenomenon that begin to occur in about the sixth month of pregnancy. So by this we can operate under the impression that thought processes are occuring in the fetus.
Your right to question 'Where do we draw the line?' Currently, we draw the line at birth, that is about as definitive a line as you can have. There is no question that the child is a separate living breathing organism and has been bestowed all rights that are available to a human.
However, prior to that definitive point, we do not count the fetus as a separate individual.
Sentience is generally understood to be self-awareness. This was denied to any other animal other than humans for years. However, after further examination we understand that dolphins and great apes recognize their own individuality where dogs do not. Granted an infant does not recognize themselves in a mirror as a separate entity until about 4-6 months of age, however, they are granted rights under the law at birth.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2002 : 20:50:04 [Permalink]
|
Aaaaaaah! Garrette, you start with somthing obviously good and straight to the point like "Sex on demand" and then you ramble.... ;)
Ramble...just like I'm about to do:
I say 'viability' and I think I can back that up;
1: There is no substantial difference between a viable fetus in the womb and a newborn.
2: The mother has had ample time to abort.
3: A viable fetus is easily defined as 'alive':
It responds to stimuli
It can maintain homeostasis
It can convert materials and energy into different forms
(It fits all other definitions too)
These three properties are what separates a viable fetus from a mass of developing cells. Perhaps a non-viable fetus can respond to stimuli and acquire energy, but it cannot maintain homeostasis.
4: The brain of a viable fetus is not different from that of a newborn. If we accept the proposition that newborns are living humans, and we look at the ample evidence that the brain is the seat of consciousness, it follows that a viable fetus is a living human, with a human brain.
Here is why it is not immoral to abort before viability:
1: Not being able to maintain homeostasis, a fetus is not alive at this stage.
2: A fetus has a very poorly developed brain. There may be some neurological activity, but it is not anything we could call thought.
3: The argument that "It is a potential child" fails because, by that logic, masturbation, celibacy and birth control are all murder.
Do any faults in my logic jump out at you?
Xev -Ad astra!- Bellringer
Edited by - Xev on 02/06/2002 20:52:13 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2002 : 21:10:01 [Permalink]
|
I think you about covered it Xev. I have come to much the same conclusion as you, however I might even go farther. I submit that prenatal humanity can only be logically determined by the measurement of brain activity. "It's a human if it has human DNA" is entirely too inclusive and "It's not a human until it's born" is ignorant of technology. The only intermediate phase that's really an on/off phenomenon is the presence of human brainwave patterns. Anything else is mere assertion.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2002 : 21:25:15 [Permalink]
|
To Trish:
I realize that euthanasia is somthing completly diffrent from abortion. I just feel that it cuts bot ways. The point where you become a human being is also the point where you cease to be one coming from the other way anything else runs the risk of creating double standards.
To PhDreamer:
I genearlly agree, but one should try to phrase such definitions in a less circular way.
A statemant like "Something is human, if it has human DNA/brainwaives" does not actually mean anything. You would have to find a way to define what human brainwaves are supposed to look like without referring back to humans.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2002 : 07:24:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To PhDreamer:
I genearlly agree, but one should try to phrase such definitions in a less circular way.
A statemant like "Something is human, if it has human DNA/brainwaives" does not actually mean anything. You would have to find a way to define what human brainwaves are supposed to look like without referring back to humans.
I don't understand. I'm not trying to justify a logical argument. What I mean when I say "human brainwaves" is that there are observed patterns of electrical discharge that are unique to this species. Had I said something like, "prior to measuring anything, x, y & z brainwave patterns are objectively human and anything I find with these brainwave patterns is therefore human" your objection might work. I can't think of any other way to define human brainwaves than measuring the brainwaves of those things which we have collectively decided are human.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2002 : 07:49:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't understand. I'm not trying to justify a logical argument. What I mean when I say "human brainwaves" is that there are observed patterns of electrical discharge that are unique to this species. Had I said something like, "prior to measuring anything, x, y & z brainwave patterns are objectively human and anything I find with these brainwave patterns is therefore human" your objection might work. I can't think of any other way to define human brainwaves than measuring the brainwaves of those things which we have collectively decided are human.
I understand what you are meaning I am just playing devils advocat here.
You should always try to make such definitions as if you were trying make a 'logical argument' cause sooner or later you are going to get confronted with a situation where such minor nitpick becomes a real issue.
For the vast majority of 'humans' this sort of defintion will work. It are those few and rare borderline-cases where you will get problems.
Brain-activity are not something that is necessarily an on/off phenomenon. You can get people who have just a little bit of activity left after an accident. And I guess that it also develops gradually.
When you try to measure the brainwaves of such a case you will get something, but you won't be able to tell if it is a human brainwave pattern, because you have defined them as somthing occuring in humans and the humanty of the subject is what is in question in the first place.
You could get out of this by abitary inventing some kind of standart brainwave pattern as an example and say that everything that does not differ from this standart by a certain margin is human. Then of course your problem will be to find out how much of a difference is acceptable.
It is harder to define what is a human being then it might seem at first glance. And for every defintion you make you will find or at least be able to make up an example of where this definition has reached it's limits.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2002 : 11:14:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I don't understand. I'm not trying to justify a logical argument. What I mean when I say "human brainwaves" is that there are observed patterns of electrical discharge that are unique to this species. Had I said something like, "prior to measuring anything, x, y & z brainwave patterns are objectively human and anything I find with these brainwave patterns is therefore human" your objection might work. I can't think of any other way to define human brainwaves than measuring the brainwaves of those things which we have collectively decided are human.
You should always try to make such definitions as if you were trying make a 'logical argument' cause sooner or later you are going to get confronted with a situation where such minor nitpick becomes a real issue.
Well, the statement that I made is actually self-referential and not circular inasmuch as it just identifies a property rather than a cause. If you want to call it circular, it is only at best trivially and inescapably so.
quote:
For the vast majority of 'humans' this sort of defintion will work. It are those few and rare borderline-cases where you will get problems.
Brain-activity are not something that is necessarily an on/off phenomenon. You can get people who have just a little bit of activity left after an accident. And I guess that it also develops gradually.
When you try to measure the brainwaves of such a case you will get something, but you won't be able to tell if it is a human brainwave pattern, because you have defined them as somthing occuring in humans and the humanty of the subject is what is in question in the first place.
The reason I think the brain is the crucial element of viability is because it is overwhelmingly considered to be the source of heretofore unreproducible consciousness and sentience. No other organ, tissue or system of the human body is so limited.
quote:
You could get out of this by abitary inventing some kind of standart brainwave pattern as an example and say that everything that does not differ from this standart by a certain margin is human. Then of course your problem will be to find out how much of a difference is acceptable.
It is harder to define what is a human being then it might seem at first glance. And for every defintion you make you will find or at least be able to make up an example of where this definition has reached it's limits.
All true, which is why I'm trying to mount a practical defence, rather than a philosophical one.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2002 : 15:05:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you about covered it Xev. I have come to much the same conclusion as you, however I might even go farther. I submit that prenatal humanity can only be logically determined by the measurement of brain activity. "It's a human if it has human DNA" is entirely too inclusive and "It's not a human until it's born" is ignorant of technology. The only intermediate phase that's really an on/off phenomenon is the presence of human brainwave patterns. Anything else is mere assertion.
Ah, was giving legal definition. However, it is a clearly defined point in the existence of an individual. Clearly separate from it's mother.
Arguments against viability: An artificial womb is created where a fetus begins to develop, in essense, not requiring a mother for support. Now, is this 'viable' outside a mother's womb and therefore granted all the rights and priviledges of a citizen or is it non-viable?
Technology has the advantage of changing viability outside the womb to the point where anything that is conceived is viable and therefore you're back to the issue of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child because that mass of cells is now 'viable'.
PhD, how do you determine whether the doctor - who may not agree with abortion - is truthful regarding the measurement of brainwaves. Additionally, there is a required caveat to your argument, amniosentisis. What if the fetus is not normal but carries one of the many genetic birth defects that can not be found until an amniosentisis is performed. Are we then to force a woman to bear a child with birth-defects because it shows human brain waves? Who then is responsible for care of this child, the woman forced to bear it or the society that forced her to bear the child?
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
