Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Stem Cell Vote and the President Bush's Moral Inconsistency
The U.S. Senate will be voting this week on expanding the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Last year, President Bush issued his only veto to block such funding arguing, "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others." Apparently the President believes that embryos consisting of 200 or so cells are the moral equivalent to a baby. But does he really believe that?
Harvard university political philosopher and member of the President's Council on Bioethics, Michael Sandel wonders about the President's moral consistency:
A further reason to be skeptical of the notion that blastocysts are persons is to notice that many who invoke it do not embrace its full implications. President Bush is a case in point. In 2001, he announced a policy that restricted federal funding to already existing stem cell lines, so that no taxpayer funds would encourage or support the destruction of embryos. And in 2006, he vetoed a bill that would have funded new embryonic stem cell research, saying that he did not want to support "the taking of innocent human life."
But it is a striking feature of the president's position that, while restricting the funding of embryonic stem cell research, he has made no effort to ban it. To adapt a slogan from the Clinton administration, the Bush policy might be summarized as "don't fund, don't ban." But this policy is at odds with the notion that embryos are human beings.
If harvesting stem cells from a blastocyst were truly on a par with harvesting organs from a baby, then the morally responsible policy would be to ban it, not merely deny it federal funding. If some doctors made a practice of killing children to get organs for transplantation, no one would take the position that the infanticide should be ineligible for federal funding but allowed to continue in the private sector. In fact, if we were persuaded that embryonic stem cell research were tantamount to infanticide, we would not only ban it but treat it as a grisly form of murder and subject scientists who performed it to criminal punishment....
If he [Bush} does not want to ban embryonic stem cell research, or prosecute stem cell scientists for murder, or ban fertility clinics from creating and discarding excess embryos, this must mean that he does not really consider human embryos as morally equivalent to fully developed human beings after all.
But if he doesn't believe that embryos are persons, then why ban federally funded embryonic stem cell research that holds promise for curing diseases and saving lives?
Whatever your stand on federal funding of research, Sandel's whole thoughtful column is worth reading here.
Here's where I ask "Is Heaven Populated Chiefly with the Souls of Embryos?"
|4.9.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Yes, Bush is hypocritical on this. Of course if he followed
through and tried to ban the research all together he would be
branded a fanatic unwilling to compromise. Is it really the case
that one must either be a fanatic or a hypocrite on difficult moral
issues? Perhaps there is a middle ground here where someone says
that they while they have an opinion, they understand that others
have a different opinion and that as mortals we cannot come to a
definitive solution and therefore reach a compromise by not banning
the research but also not making people who object pay taxes to
support it.
If you disagree with Bush on stem cell research then say so and say
why it is a good thing for the government to fund it. But I don't
think, he is a hypocrite argument really flies.
|4.9.07 @ 11:35AM|#
To pretend that Bush cares about human life at all is utterly ludicrous. If he was all that serious, he'd throw huge amounts of energy and resources into preventing deaths of born people. Forget it. He does not think of babies when he thinks of stem cells; he thinks only of power.
|4.9.07 @ 11:38AM|#
I support this research, I think it's a good thing; but forcing
the public to fund scientific research that a sizeable portion
finds immoral is simply not in line with liberterian principles in
my opinion.
The best option you have to to try and convince people why they
shouldn't think of the research as immoral, your article is good
work in this regard.
|4.9.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Putting forth another variation of the "blastocysts aren't
persons because no one grieves them" argument? Dare you taste
crimethink's Fist of Justice again?
If you're just trying to say Bush is a scumbag, well, no argument
there. But that doesn't prove anything about the personhood of
blastocysts.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 11:44AM|#
1. Libertarian except for stuff that benefits me. As per
usual.
2. False dichotomy. President Bush believes that embryos have
value, but that this value is not the full equivalent of an
already-born person's value. This is something I agree with the
president about. Similar (but not the same) as the way most people
believe that animals have more metaphysical value than rocks, but
less than humans. Duh.
3. Why is this guy still the science writer here?
|4.9.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Isn't killing innocent people (actual people, even) in the hope of saving others...a basic premise of Bush's "preventive war" strategy?
|4.9.07 @ 11:45AM|#
If he [Michael Sandel] does not want to
invade Iraq, or prosecute Saddam
Hussein for murder, this must mean that he does not really
consider Iraqis as morally equivalent to
American human beings after all.
Is this a valid argument, Ron?
Timothy|4.9.07 @ 11:45AM|#
crimethink: If you're looking for RedState or LGF, follow Speedwell to the fork and take a right. Or, hell, take a left to DU, I don't really care.
|4.9.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Is Heaven Populated Chiefly with the Souls of Embryos?
Don't unbaptized babies go to hell?
|4.9.07 @ 11:47AM|#
3. Why is this guy still the science writer here?
He's usually pretty good on other issues, but he throws logic to
the four winds when there's a pro-life stance that needs
bashing.
VM|4.9.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Timothy -
just realize that his, um, "views" aren't based on his
religion.
Too bad. His grand dragon here in chicago almost met his maker over
the weekend.
|4.9.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Timothy,
Do my views threaten you so? If you could show why they are false,
I would be forced to depart the thread in shame, no?
B|4.9.07 @ 11:50AM|#
if he followed through and tried to ban the research all
together he would be branded a fanatic unwilling to
compromise.
For some reason, I don't think this figures into this particular
president's reasoning much...
dhex|4.9.07 @ 11:51AM|#
the first question is how do you measure "being" in order to prove anything about it?
crimethink and his Woodchuck D|4.9.07 @ 11:53AM|#
For a magazine called Reason, you guys really have a hard time separating the person from his argument...
|4.9.07 @ 11:54AM|#
John,
Bush is only hypocrtical here because he's arguing the position
that blastocysts are full human persons, and yet issues a policy
far weaker than the protections he supports for actual full human
persons.
If he was arguing that blastocysts had some moral standing we were
bound to respect, but that their standing is less than that of a
human person, then his compromise would be consistent with his
stated beliefs.
VM|4.9.07 @ 11:54AM|#
dhex - being cannot not be. not being cannot be.
did i tell you the time I threw an ENTIRE OAK TREE into the
lake?
oh. wait. was just an acorn.
or: sum ergo cogito
lol.
|4.9.07 @ 11:57AM|#
I'll be back at 1:00 EDT. By that time, you guys better have proven that the blastocyst isn't a person, or I'll have to go Dominican on this thread...
Timothy|4.9.07 @ 12:00PM|#
crimethink: your views? No. Your utter douchebaggery? Well, that's another matter entirely.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Bush is only hypocrtical here because he's arguing the
position that blastocysts are full human persons, and yet issues a
policy far weaker than the protections he supports for actual full
human persons.
That is not what he said.
His words were "innocent human life."
Timothy|4.9.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Frankly, crimethink makes me miss Dan T. Man, that's a fucking shame, isn't it? Don't you have an imaginary friend to bother or something, dude?
|4.9.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Don't unbaptized babies go to hell?
It was Limbo, and not anymore. Bennie XVI says so.
|4.9.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Dave W.,
Terminology aside, Bush is arguing that a blastocyst has the full
compliment of human rights, and that we are bound to respect those
rights just as much as those of any person you pass on the
street.
VM|4.9.07 @ 12:07PM|#
"Don't unbaptized babies go to hell?"
nope. on whole wheat with lettuce, onions, and tomato.
(it's called "the Living Sandwich". And it's a prime seller with a
diet mountain dew and a bag of chips - lunch special for
$5.99)
(put your business card in this bin, and if drawn, you get to try
to roll away boulders from cave #1, cave #2, or cave #3. if you can
move it, you win a prize!)
|4.9.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Welcome back crimethink. Just what kind of evidence would
persuade you that a blastocyst was not human person worthy of moral
consideration?
I am generally opposed to federal funding of research, but I am
also opposed to what amounts to using religious tests for
determining which research gets funded. Finally, I have tried (and
obviously failed) to make a distinction that such federal bans
"chill" even private research since it implies the future
possibililty of criminalizing even
private research.
VM|4.9.07 @ 12:18PM|#
"The cave is empty!
Where has the dead guy gone to?
Zombie Jesus Day!"
Tim wins the free lunch
and r u four eighty six
for everybody
VM|4.9.07 @ 12:25PM|#
Tim has won the prize
got to roll rock away. just
melted chocolate there
MATT DAMON was right
demand kurv is immoral
zog's word trumps all thought
Sam L. Moose|4.9.07 @ 12:32PM|#
I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHERFUCKING BLASTOCYSTS ON THIS MOTHERFUCKING PLANE!!!
|4.9.07 @ 12:34PM|#
I hate to even bring this up, because it seems so obvious, but
how does our President reconcile his opposition to "the taking of
innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for
others" with his willingness to take innocent human life (say,
Iraqi civilians) in hope of providing political benefits for
others?
I'm not saying that Bush is out there wantonly murdering Iraqi
civilians, but in a war, civilian casualties are unavoidable. So
what I'm wondering is, how to reconcile the two viewpoints? Does
anybody have a moral calculus to support these two positions? I'm
genuinely curious.
VM|4.9.07 @ 12:35PM|#
'Timothy | April 9, 2007, 12:31pm | #
Joe, not an Oscar
You smell rotting flesh
Failed to freeze remains"
the carbon footprint
of the deep freezer unit
violates Al Gore
Timothy|4.9.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Al Gore wears size 10
His feet are not all that large
Sort of surprising.
Timothy|4.9.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Blastocysts do rock
They play heavy metal sound
Make GWAR look like sluts
|4.9.07 @ 12:42PM|#
A Die Hard prequel
Armed blastocyst, smart assed lines.
I smell an Oscar.
No, make it a 'Dome!
"Two clumps of cells enter
"One clump of cells leaves!"
|4.9.07 @ 12:46PM|#
We the Blastocysts of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Fetus, establish life, insure progressive birthrates, provide infinite salty ham tears, promote the general population, and secure the straps of diapers to ourselves and our Posterior, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|4.9.07 @ 12:55PM|#
I have a sinking feeling that there is some sort of conspiracy
between Bush and the blastocysts, and perhaps it is even somehow
related to this strange and disturbing case:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29871
|4.9.07 @ 1:07PM|#
I am generally opposed to federal funding of research, but I
am also opposed to what amounts to using religious tests for
determining which research gets funded. Finally, I have tried (and
obviously failed) to make a distinction that such federal bans
"chill" even private research since it implies the future
possibililty of criminalizing even private research.
So you compromise
Fed funds objection, due to
Realpolitik?
What then of "moral
Inconsistency"? Or is
Rule only for Bush?
|4.9.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Just what kind of evidence would persuade you that a
blastocyst was not human person worthy of moral
consideration?
What kind of evidence would persuade you that a one-week-old baby
is not a human person worthy of moral consideration?
Why is the burden of proof on me when it is you who is drawing the
line separating person from non-person?
|4.9.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Oh, for crying out loud, if PETA tries to ban the sale of
clothing made out of dog fur, I don't call it hypocrisy when they
don't simultaneously call for a ban on the sale of clothing made
from the fur of less cute animals, like minks and chincillas.
Besides which, a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell
research is something that is clearly within the powers of Congress
(i.e., control over federal spending), while a ban on all embryonic
stem-cell research per se is something that only falls within
Congress's powers under the a strained reading of the Commerce
Clause (though admittedly not more strained than the one employed
in Gonzales v. Raich--but at least in that case it wasn't Bush who
had proposed enactment of the law in question (I thank "strict
constructionist" Richard Nixon for that one)).
|4.9.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Stevo,
You're forgetting the #1 rule of Reason: it's OK to base decisions
on any ideology, even if it's not rationally justifiable, so long
as the bearded guy in the sky doesn't make an appearance.
So, Mr Bailey's decision that ESCR needs to be funded, based on his
transhumanist ideology, is OK. Bush's decision that ESCR should not
be funded, based on his religious beliefs*, is not.
* of course it can also be justified on non-religious grounds, but
I don't want to open up that can of worms again...
|4.9.07 @ 1:24PM|#
I'll play too. I'll start with the dictionary:
blastocyst - the modified blastula of a placental mammal.
blastula - an early metazoan embryo typically having the form of a
hollow fluid-filled rounded cavity bounded by a single layer of
cells.
metazoan - any of a group (Metazoa) that comprises all animals
having the body composed of cells differentiated into tissues and
organs and usu. a digestive cavity lined with specialized
cells.
I didn't see the word human or person anywhere in those
definitions.
My arbitrary bright line of personhood is viability without
reliance on the womb. This will undoubtedly get more murky as our
Matrix like support systems make embryos viable at earlier and
earlier developmental stages.
|4.9.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Just what kind of evidence would persuade you that a
blastocyst was not human person worthy of moral
consideration?
Mr. Bailey here challenges crimethink to apply the principle of
falsifiability, which is traditionally used to test empirical
propositions (e.g., the earth revolves around the sun), in order to
test his moral proposition. This amounts to asking crimethink what
kind of "is" will cause him to change his "ought." As crimethink
points out, by posing a counter-question, this doesn't really
work.
VM|4.9.07 @ 1:41PM|#
science has thresholds
it's not a moral issue
unless religious
he spends too much time
convincing us that he's not.
closed minded bigot
|4.9.07 @ 1:42PM|#
If a person claims a position based upon biblical truth and
compromises that position for political positioning, is that what
the bible would call blaspheming the holy ghost?
Isn't religion supposed to be fanatical? I mean,if jesus really was
the son of god, that God sacrificed to atone for everyone's sin, is
it really possible to be overzealous toward God? Shouldn't
christians be doing all they can to spread the Gospel so that all
may come to Christ for salvation?
|4.9.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Sauce for the gander,
Seamus. crimethink asked for proof
cell clumps are not folk.
|4.9.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Dictionary is
A tricky weapon to wield.
I whip out my dic:
mam·mal /[mam-uhl]
-noun. Any vertebrate of the class Mammalia, having the body more
or less covered with hair, nourishing the young with milk from the
mammary glands, and, with the exception of the egg-laying
monotremes, giving birth to live young.
"Human" not mentioned
In this broad definition.
No mammals human?
ktc2|4.9.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Why do you look for reason and consistency in Bush? Haven't we
given up on that long ago?
Bush is an imbecile. A convenient puppet.
Now, who is pulling his strings?
ktc2|4.9.07 @ 1:47PM|#
I oppose federal funding for damn near everything, including
stem cell research.
Not because it's "immoral" but because its not the federal
governments job.
VM|4.9.07 @ 1:47PM|#
mammals have boobies
so says Timothy the Wise.
I'll be in my bunk!
sorry for double
premature postulation
not from bating, tho.
|4.9.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Friends, disagreement
Pains me. But if I fake thoughts,
I'm unworthy friend.
I hope this debate
Leads not to loss of respect.
I promise I won't.
Timothy|4.9.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Baiting can be fun
But I don't really like fish much
My food used to walk.
|4.9.07 @ 1:52PM|#
1. Argument from dictionary is a form of argument from
authority, and thus invalid.
2. Not all blastocysts are human. There are chimp blastocysts, dog
blastocysts, ferret blastocysts, etc. Only the ones produced from
human reproductive cells are human.
VM|4.9.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Stevo is very
kind, decent, and respectful
Timothy: Concur!
baitin is not same.
batin only in own bunk
per judge's order
|4.9.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Websters collegiate dictionary
embryo-1. an animal in the earliest stages of its development in
the uterus: the human organism in the first three months after
conception is called an embryo, thereafter a fetus.
human-1.of or characteristic of a person or persons: such as people
have. n. a person: usually human being.
organism-n 1. any living thing
|4.9.07 @ 1:56PM|#
"Rectangle" includes
More than rectang's that are squares.
Just as I argued
"Blastocyst" includes
More than just human blastos.
That's just what I meant.
|4.9.07 @ 1:57PM|#
If this discussion were about me being a dick, Timothy would be on the right track.
|4.9.07 @ 1:58PM|#
Oops, crimethink made the point I just put up
I'm inclined to fuck this; I can't keep up.
|4.9.07 @ 2:00PM|#
And then there are crimethink blastocysts, lowest among
them.
Probably not, seeing as the activity that leads to blastocyst
creation has never been partaken in by crimethink.
Timothy|4.9.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Darkly would be great
what should he name his sweet band?
Stevo and the Jets*?
*Where Jets=hot chicks with cellphones set to vibrate.
VM|4.9.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Have you seen ed's thought
interesting idea hier
might solve our problems
Band is really sweet
Mr. Crane will sing back up
with Noam Blow Up Doll!
|4.9.07 @ 2:03PM|#
If he [Bush} does not want to ban embryonic stem cell
research, or prosecute stem cell scientists for murder, or ban
fertility clinics from creating and discarding excess embryos, this
must mean that he does not really consider human embryos as morally
equivalent to fully developed human beings after all.
But if he doesn't believe that embryos are persons, then why
ban federally funded embryonic stem cell research that holds
promise for curing diseases and saving lives?
I don't see that Bush is being self-contradictory. It seems that
the horns of this dilemma become less menacing when you consider
that Bush need not consider embryos to be the full moral equivalent
of human children in order to take his position of banning federal
funding of stem-cell research. Embryos are, in Bush's view, merely
"innocent" and "human." I don't like his stance, but his position
seems, in effect, to be a compromise resulting from an
acknowledgment of the great disparity of opinion on the issue of
the status of embryos. Since there are so many people that object
to the practice, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it (he is
saying), even though they (and he) might be mistaken in their
objections.
Now if he would only apply this logic to the war.
|4.9.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Argument from dictionary is a form of argument from
authority, and thus invalid.
Says who?
|4.9.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Dave W.
I get your point, but doesn't Bush's position seem a little like
Pilate washing his hands?
|4.9.07 @ 2:09PM|#
With the faster couplets on this thread I think I'll stick
Crimethink can be prickLY; I don't think he's really such a
prick
I'll probably withdraw now, if you don't mind
To me you all are literally too kind.
I'll watch crimethink do the dirty work, while I just snark
As other clumps of human cells trade bite and bark
|4.9.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Ethan,
Heh, good point!
I guess it's just a principle of rational argumentation that an
argument's truth value cannot depend on the one making it. If one
accepts this, then claiming that Y is true because X says so, is
not a valid argument.
|4.9.07 @ 2:13PM|#
That's also the principle behind the ad hominem being a fallacious form of argument.
Timothy|4.9.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Mister Steveo I'm with you
This thread will go nowhere, thus I am through
There's little point in arguing such things
They're axiomatic, like birds having wings.
|4.9.07 @ 2:14PM|#
That's also the principle behind the ad hominem being a
fallacious form of argument.
Yeah, well you *would* say that, wouldn't you?
|4.9.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Why is the burden of proof on me when it is you who is
drawing the line separating person from non-person?
Your dismissal was that this is an argument from authority is lame.
A definition is where one must start. Your definition of person
includes these blastocysts. What is your basis?
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 2:47PM|#
I get your point, but doesn't Bush's position seem a little
like Pilate washing his hands?
Actually to me it seems more like having the President of Iran or
Hugo Chavez say stuff that you agree with, and then you cringe
because of who's mouth the words are coming from.
It would be like if Celine Dion liked my band, or Rose Bird liked
my patent blog.
|4.9.07 @ 2:54PM|#
I'm not saying that Bush is out :there wantonly murdering
Iraqi civilians, but in a war, civilian casualties are unavoidable.
So what I'm wondering is, how to reconcile the two viewpoints? Does
anybody have a moral calculus to support these two positions? I'm
genuinely curious.
I would have thought it fairly obvious that the difference is the
one between deliberately and directly causing a death and causing a
death indirectly, as a foreseen but unintended side effect of some
other action that is morally licit in itself. The most fanatical
pro-lifer finds it morally licit for a pregnant woman with cancer
to undergo radiation and chemotherapy treatment, even if she
foresees that the treatment is likely to kill her unborn child as
well as the cancer cells.
Indeed, Catholic moral philosophy teaches that it is even licit to
remove a diseased uterus, even from a pregnant woman, because the
intention is not to kill the unborn child. See, e.g., this
discussion of the case of St. Gianna Beretta Molla: "Considering
the dangers, she could have chosen to have her uterus removed
(hysterectomy) in order to remove the fibroid from her body. This
would be a fairly low-risk approach for her situation. It would
result, however, in the death of her 2 month old fetus, and
preclude the possibility of future pregnancies. Based on the
particulars of her case, this option would not have been morally
problematic; Catholic moralists have analyzed cases of this sort
under the Principle of Double Effect. Such an intervention is
directed towards saving the life of the mother by removing the
cancerous uterus (which has the undesired effect of ending the life
of the unborn child). Morally, such a case would be properly
considered under the aspect of a hysterectomy, not under the rubric
of elective abortion."
(Source: http://www.saintgianna.org/medicalcircum.htm)
|4.9.07 @ 2:56PM|#
crimethink: I didn't put the burden of proof on you. I just
asked you what kind of evidence would would persuade you that a
blastocyst was not human person worthy of moral consideration? If
you can't think of any sort of evidence then there is no use the
two of us arguing further. You think I'm wrong for what you believe
to be good and sufficient reasons, and I think that you are wrong
for what I believe to be good and sufficient reasons.
BTW, I hope you were not hinting that I have engaged in ad hominem
arguments with you.
|4.9.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Crimethink writes I guess it's just a principle of rational
argumentation that an argument's truth value cannot depend on the
one making it. If one accepts this, then claiming that Y is true
because X says so, is not a valid argument.
Actually, an appeal to an authority figure can, and often is, a
perfectly acceptable form of reasoning (look it up). The Fallacy of
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority occurs when either of the
following occurs: (1) the authority to whom you appeal is not an
authority with respect to the specific question at issue, or (2)
there exists disagreement among the mainstream experts with respect
to the specific question at issue. If neither of these obtain, then
an appeal to authority is a perfectly rational form of reasoning.
Think about it: how do we know things about which we are not
experts? By looking to see what the experts say. If you and I are
wondering whether we may conclude that "X" is true, it is obviously
relevant to go and see what the X-perts say (ha ha).
I taught critical thinking for a few years, so you can accept what
I am saying as true.
|4.9.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Wouldn't a ban on destroying embryos probably be regarded as running afoul of Roe vs. Wade? (Not that Bush supports Roe, but he has to work with the law as it is.)
|4.9.07 @ 3:13PM|#
Wouldn't a ban on destroying embryos probably be regarded as
running afoul of Roe vs. Wade?
Only if conducting research on embryonic stem cells is a method of
terminating a pregnancy.
D.A. Ridgely|4.9.07 @ 3:14PM|#
BTW, I hope you were not hinting that I have engaged in ad
hominem arguments with you.
Possibly ad blastonem, though.
Stepping on as many toes as po|4.9.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Chocolate Jesus drinks
liquid blastocyst on ice
but from muslim kids
D.A. Ridgely|4.9.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Actually, an appeal to an authority figure is a bit
Freudian, if you know what I mean.
[sigh...]
Regardless of the expertise of the authority, such authority's
merely asserting X is not proof that X is true. That, and
only that is the sense in which the appeal is an informal
fallacy. (Obviously it's a formal fallacy -- "A believes X;
therefore, X" clearly is not formally valid.) Yeah, sure, it's a
splendid reason for believing that X probably is true, and yadda,
yadda, but that ain't quite the same thing.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 3:26PM|#
D.A. Ridgely,
No, it would be Freudian if it were an appeal to a father figure.
Or Burkean. Take your pick.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 3:30PM|#
DAR,
Though the best part about Burke is him describing the English as
being like cows chewing their cud. ;)
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 3:40PM|#
I just asked you what kind of evidence would would persuade
you that a blastocyst was not human person worthy of moral
consideration?
Asking for "evidence" on a metaphysical question?! Why is this guy
still the science writer here?
|4.9.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Asking for "evidence" on a metaphysical question?! Why is
this guy still the science writer here?
It's actually a moral question rather than a metaphysical one. But
as I noted earlier, Mr. Bailey seems to have forgotten his
undergraduate philosophy education, or else he wouldn't be asking
crimethink to derive an ought from an is.
|4.9.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Regardless of the expertise of the authority, such
authority's merely asserting X is not proof that X is true. That,
and only that is the sense in which the appeal is an informal
fallacy.
That's simply not true. The informal fallacy is as I described it
above (3:03 p.m.). Google "fallacy of appeal to authority" if you'd
like. Or perhaps try
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
It has a pretty good explanation of the informal fallacy.
Yeah, sure, it's a splendid reason for believing that X
probably is true, and yadda, yadda, but that ain't quite the same
thing.
Well, if it's a "splendid reason," how can it be fallacious?
|4.9.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Ethan,
It is true that an appeal to authority is a convenient substitute
for one's own careful consideration of a question. For instance, if
someone were to ask me what the ratio of the mass of a proton to
that of an electron was, I would tell them 1836. I haven't ever
"weighed" electrons or protons, so I can only be asserting that
based on the authority of those who have told me so. I don't have
the time, resources, or inclination to test every scientific
question for myself.
However, when in doubt, the question of what that ratio is must
ultimately be settled by directly measuring it, not by parroting
the received wisdom. The latter road is what led the Catholic
Church into its past attempts to squelch science in the name of
preserving Aristotle's authority, and as a Catholic I'm the first
to discourage going down that road.
|4.9.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Or perhaps try
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
It has a pretty good explanation of the informal
fallacy.
Well, since Nizkor isn't an expert on logical fallacies, I think we
can safely reject this appeal to authority.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Seamus,
Well, I'll appeal to authority and state that the way Ethan is
describing the matter was what I was taught.
|4.9.07 @ 4:18PM|#
From Wikipedia, a questionable authority:
There are
exceptions to the idea that appeal to authority is a fallacy,
however. There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on
the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an
authority, the more compelling the argument. The only case in which
an appeal to authority definitely proves the claim to be factual is
when the authority cited is an absolute
authority.
I would agree with this statement; in the question at hand (the
personhood of blastocysts) it's hard to think of a non-supernatural
absolute authority that a valid appeal could be made to. A
dictionary would definitely not qualify.
Do Grotius, Ethan, etc, disagree with the above statement?
|4.9.07 @ 4:34PM|#
Crimethink,
You have finally answered Ron Bailey's question - the only evidence
you will accept would have to come from God.
Had you honestly admitted that as your original premise, we would
have saved a lot of time. I'll know better next time.
|4.9.07 @ 4:35PM|#
The whole discussion of the validity of the appeal to authority in this context is a little silly. The problem with Tbone's argument isn't that he was citing the dictionary, it's that he was citing dictionary definitions in ways that failed to engage the arguments he was purporting to refute. No one on the anti-ESCR side thinks there's a moral problem with research involving blastocysts *generally*; they only find a moral problem with research involving *human* blastocysts. Tbone will have a hard time finding a dictionary definition of "human blastocyst" or "human blastola" that excludes the word "human" in such a way as to permit him to draw conclusions of the sort he'd like to draw.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Seamus,
By using the term "play" I assumed that there was some irony
involved in Tbone's statement.
|4.9.07 @ 4:45PM|#
You have finally answered Ron Bailey's question - the only
evidence you will accept would have to come from God.
Crimethink wasn't answering a question about evidence; he was
answering a question about authority. There is a difference, you
know.
Moreover, as I pointed out, by raising the question of evidence at
all, Mr. Bailey is trying to suggest that one can derive an ought
from an is. There are, however, means other than evidence or
authority that can lead someone like crimethink to change his moral
opinions. One of them, I would imagine, is logic. Thus, for
example, if one could demonstrate to crimethink that his views on
the moral status of a blastocyst were inconsistent with other views
he holds, then either crimethink would revise his opinions one one
or the other point, or he could be dismissed (as Mr. Bailey
prematurely attempted to do so at 2:56 pm) as a person not worth
arguing with.
|4.9.07 @ 4:46PM|#
Seamus,
I am perfectly comfortable arguing or drawing conclusions about
human blastocysts provided human is used in the proper context, as
an adjective, not as a noun.
|4.9.07 @ 4:46PM|#
I meant to italicize the quotation in the first paragraph of my 4:45 pm post. Sorry about that.
|4.9.07 @ 4:49PM|#
I am perfectly comfortable arguing or drawing conclusions
about human blastocysts provided human is used in the proper
context, as an adjective, not as a noun.
I await eagerly your argument using the dictionary to prove that a
human blastocyst is not a human being. (Note the use of "human" in
both places "as an adjective, not as a noun.")
|4.9.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Back to the original discussion, I must say I disagree slightly
with Dave W and Seamus about the possibility of "evidence" for a
moral proposition. While empirical knowledge cannot prove or
disprove the validity of moral principles, it can inform their
application.
For instance, abortion proponents often note that medieval Church
authorities didn't consider abortion before "quickening" to be
murder, citing this as evidence that the Church hasn't always
opposed early abortions. However, this ignores the fact that until
the 1700s pregnancy was essentially a "black box" process;
something that was clearly not a human being (semen) went in, and a
baby came out a while later. There was no way to know that a human
being was present inside the mother until it started kicking, and
since early abortions/miscarriages produced only a bloody clump, it
must have seemed reasonable to believe that the thing inside the
mother was closer to semen than a baby.
However, when the process of conception and early development was
better understood in the 1700s, it became clear that conception
produced a totally different entity from semen. Thus, the
application of Church teaching on abortion was updated to take into
account that from conception on, the unborn entity is a distinct
human being from the mother and the father's semen.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 4:54PM|#
Tbone,
You might recall that a little over a month ago crimethink claimed
that the "income tax" (by
which he presumably means the 16th Amendment) was instituted so as
to pay for WWI. Keep in mind that the 13th Amendment was ratified
in 1913 (after being out in the states for some time*), whereas WWI
started in 1914 and the U.S. did not become involved in that war
until 1917.
I have to ask, where does this myth about the federal income tax
arise from?
Crimethink's language:
It's also
responsible for the income tax -- originally a temporary measure to
force the wealthy to fund WW1...
*The notion of an income tax had been fermenting in Republican
circles since the 1890s and many wealthy people perferred it over a
tax structure which relied primarily on taxes on businesses,
corporations, etc.
|4.9.07 @ 4:56PM|#
My comments on appeals to authority concerned appeals to
authority generally--I was merely correcting CT's claims about
appeals to authority. Whether in this particular case an
inappropriate appeal to authority has been made I haven't submitted
an opinion. It strikes me, though, that in the case of moral
questions there is often no authority to appeal to nonfallaciously
(in that there is always disagreement among the experts on such
questions).
I agree that an appeal to authority can only be as strong as the
expertise of the authority appealed to, and that there probably is
no authority to appeal to in the case of the question of the
personhood of blastocysts.
Well, since Nizkor isn't an expert on logical fallacies, I
think we can safely reject this appeal to authority.
Seamus, the authority I was appealing to was my own. The
explanation in the link is accurate. I wasn't appealing to Nizkor's
authority; rather, my expertise in the area allowed me to see that
it was accurate.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 4:58PM|#
crimethink,
...it became clear that conception produced a totally different
entity from semen.
How did this become "clear?"
|4.9.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Grotius, are you claiming that the product of conception is not a different entity from semen?
|4.9.07 @ 5:02PM|#
I understand the difference between an argument from authority
and evidence. What I haven't seen is any response from crimethink.
He challenged the notion that blastocyst are not persons ignoring
an argument from authority to that end but offers no counterpoint.
He further defends this dismissal by stating there is no credible
non-supernatural absolute authority to properly judge.
So is that it crimethink?
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 5:03PM|#
Moreover, as I pointed out, by raising the question of
evidence at all, Mr. Bailey is trying to suggest that one can
derive an ought from an is.
Thanks for explaining this. Not knowing much about philosophy, I
was confused by your earlier reference to it, as well as by other
people referencing this bit in other discussions. I think I get it
now.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 5:05PM|#
crimethink,
I'm not the one making noises about "not ... parroting the received
wisdom."
|4.9.07 @ 5:07PM|#
I'm not in the mood for another holy war over abortion here. My purpose in this thread was merely to show that the attacks of the anti-blastocyst types are without merit -- which I think we can all agree I've done handily. Pulling the weeds before the planting begins, and stuff.
|4.9.07 @ 5:10PM|#
I await eagerly your argument using the dictionary to prove
that a human blastocyst is not a human being. (Note the use of
"human" in both places "as an adjective, not as a
noun.")
Human - of, relating to, or charaterstic of man.
As used in a sentence: Human blastocysts are an organized form of
human cells that, under the proper conditions, have the potential
to become a human being.
|4.9.07 @ 5:10PM|#
I'm still looking for an explanation of why a blastocyst is morally different from, say, a heart that's been removed from a donor. They're both collections of human cells that can't survive on their own; and properly installed into a human host, both sets of cells are capable of going on living and reproducing (and dying), all while consuming some of the host body's resources.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 5:11PM|#
crimethink,
Grotius, are you claiming that the product of conception is not
a different entity from semen?
No I'm stating that it is a distinction without difference. Sperm
and blastocyst are morally identical entities.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 5:16PM|#
crimethink,
Anyway, I am curious where you got the idea that 16th Amendment was
instituted to pay for WWI. I see this myth pop up from time to time
and I wonder what its genesis is.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 5:18PM|#
I'm still looking for an explanation of why a blastocyst is
morally different from, say, a heart that's been removed from a
donor. They're both collections of human cells that can't survive
on their own; and properly installed into a human host, both sets
of cells are capable of going on living and reproducing (and
dying), all while consuming some of the host body's
resources.
So is an infant.
|4.9.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Dave W. & Seamus: I am not trying to derive an is from an
ought. As crimethink reasonably points out scientific evidence can
and does bear materially on ought questions on ocassion. The Roman
Catholic Church changed its stance on abortion in light of
scientific evidence concerning conception. For example, in 1779,
Lazarro Spallanzani described the process of conception (using dog
and frog eggs) for the first time. My hope is that scientific
details such as the fact that up 70% of naturally conceived embryos
will have some effect on how other people think about how morally
important embryos are in the scheme of things. After all, all
people were once embryos, but not all (in a minority) embryos
become people.
If I believed embryos are (an "is") people, then I would
also believe that they ought to be protected from
destruction. But that's not what I believe and I cite scientific
evidence that distinguishes embryos from beings that I do regard as
people. So what would convince crimethink that embryos are
not people, and thus ought not be protected?
|4.9.07 @ 5:25PM|#
that up to 70% of naturally conceived embryos disppear in the
menstrual flow of women without ever having been registered as
existing ....
Sorry for the truncated comment above.
|4.9.07 @ 5:27PM|#
Human - of, relating to, or charaterstic of man.
As used in a sentence: Human blastocysts are an organized form of
human cells that, under the proper conditions, have the potential
to become a human being.
You call that an argument? That use of "human" in a sentence is, at
best, a demonstration that it is possible for a person who denies a
human blastocyst the status of a human being to use the word in a
way that conforms with that opinion. I think we all knew that
already.
|4.9.07 @ 5:32PM|#
So what would convince crimethink that embryos are not
people, and thus ought not be protected?
It may be risky for me to speak for crimethink, but I suspect he
would be convinced if you could show him that embryos were not the
product of conception from the union of human gametes.
So what evidence would suffice to convince you that *you* were not
a human person worthy of the protection of the law?
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 5:44PM|#
Dave W.,
Neither a human heart nor a human blastocyst has a brain, or a
consciousness, etc.
|4.9.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Seamus: If I were to suffer whole brain death, please turn off the respirator. BTW, embryos don't have brains.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 5:48PM|#
that up to 70% of naturally conceived embryos disppear in
the menstrual flow of women without ever having been registered as
existing ....
BTW, this fact convinced me respect embryos less than I used to. I
almost mentioned that above when stroking Seamus.
However, I would hesitate not term this as "evidence." "Evidence"
implies scientific and/or legal methodologies that are simply not
applicable in the moral realm.
If you could come up with evidence that the embryo was not the
thing that grew into the human person, and also not necessary or
helpful for this growth, then I think that would convince
crimethink that it has the zero metaphysical value that you want to
accord it. Got anything like that, evidence-wise?
|4.9.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Seamus,
You asked for a dictionary-based response. I use the term "human"
consistent with its commonly understood definition of relating to
man. You are using it in a context that connotes personhood. My
sentence was not an argument, just a statement.
My argument - that a blastocyst does not a human make - would be
based on nonviability outside the host.
Dave W.|4.9.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Neither a human heart nor a human blastocyst has a brain, or a
consciousness, etc.
Okay. An unconscious infant then.
|4.9.07 @ 6:20PM|#
You asked for a dictionary-based response.
No, actually, I asked for an argument. At least, that's what I take
the words "I await eagerly your argument using the dictionary to
prove," etc., to mean. I guess I wasn't aware of the definition of
"argument" that means "not an argument, just a statement."
Guess I need to get a new dictionary.
|4.9.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Please respond to this argument then. Blastocysts are nonviable, therefore not a human being.
|4.9.07 @ 6:58PM|#
Tbone, that's not an argument, it's an assertion. You haven't offered any evidence to convince us (besides your authority, if any).
|4.9.07 @ 7:02PM|#
If I were to suffer whole brain death, please turn off the
respirator. BTW, embryos don't have brains.
When a fully-developed human is without brain function, there is no
known way to regain it. If there were such a way, you might want to
reconsider your DNR.
However, for a blastocyst, it is possible to develop brain function
despite the fact that it has no brain.
|4.9.07 @ 7:08PM|#
that up to 70% of naturally conceived embryos disppear in
the menstrual flow of women without ever having been registered as
existing ....
Right Ron, and since I don't even notice the millions of African
kids shitting themselves to death each year due to lack of
sanitation, that must mean they're not persons either. If I don't
grieve for someone, they must not be that important.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 7:11PM|#
crimethink,
Yeah, its possible, but that possibility doesn't make it a human
being anymore than the results of a wet dream are a human
being.
|4.9.07 @ 7:12PM|#
My argument is a blastocyst is not a person - by definition. This is an argument from authority (Websters); it holds the same footing as the argument that an apple pie is not a Volvo - by definition. You have offered no counterargument. And until you do, I am done.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 7:15PM|#
Anyway the "possibility argument" suffers from a serious flaw: where does one stop? One could justify a dozen or more areas where one creates a dividing line but they all ultimately look rather arbitrary.
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 7:20PM|#
Let's do a hypothetical.
Say I created a creature which looks like a human being, has all
the internal organs of one, etc. except for one: it lacks a brain.
(Leave aside for now the moral aspects of me creating such a
creature.)
Would such a creature be a human being?
Grotius|4.9.07 @ 7:24PM|#
Let's also add a twist to the hypo: say I could add a brain to the creature at any time. Would it be a human then (even before I added the brain)?
|4.9.07 @ 7:47PM|#
If human embryonic stem cell research is so important can not the funding come from the private sector? Why does the gov have to involved at all? Something is fishy here. If the only way to get this reseach funded is from stealing the money from the people by way of taxes then I would have to say it is not worth it. Let the market decide and leave gov out of it.
D.A. Ridgely|4.9.07 @ 8:04PM|#
Ethan, an appeal to one's own authority to argue the nature of
appeals to authority is almost thrilling in its boldness. I applaud
you.
Mr. Bailey is correct in noting that facts are relevant to moral
judgments. If I recall correctly, however, it is not the mere
possession of a brain that he considers morally sufficient, since
both animals and, for that matter, later stage human fetuses have
them, too. In any case, the better question, really, is not what
evidence he or others would require to change their minds but why
this piece of evidence or that, as the case may be, is deemed
morally significant to them. There, really, is where the is / ought
nexus is most perplexing.
|4.9.07 @ 9:26PM|#
Political comprimises are rarely logically consistent. That's all there is to it.
Grotius|4.10.07 @ 12:00AM|#
DAR,
If I understand you two correctly you and Mr. Bailey are actually
wrong (in most cases). People as a rule apply "facts" to the moral
positions they have already adopted. Which is why new facts, even
of the damning variety, are so often easily discounted.
Grotius|4.10.07 @ 12:01AM|#
DAR,
So really the facts don't matter much; what matters is why the
person adopted the position in the first place.
|4.10.07 @ 5:36AM|#
My opinion of the beginning of personhood, after leaving the
Catholic Church, has always centered around the development of the
human brain in the fetus. Whether he is viable outside Mom or not,
once the kid's brain is sufficiently developed so that it is more
like an infant than a clump of goo, we ought to seriously consider
protecting it. Prior to any such development it is similar to a
fully braindead adult.
The trick, of course, is determining when to draw that bright line.
This isn't a problem for those who think that their god "ensouls"
newly fertilized ova before any cell division takes place.
Kevin
Grotius|4.10.07 @ 5:48AM|#
kevrob,
I'd say that the vast majority of those who have problems with ESCR
fall into the "ensouls" category.
|4.10.07 @ 8:24AM|#
kevrob, there is no bright line. Wishing for one won't make it
so. Good arguments can be made for anything from conception to
drawing the first breath or saying the first word.
Grotius, if you have to draw a line, conception is clearly one of
the best. No ensoulment required. Choosing a later point is a cost
benefit analysis: "Well, it isn't very much like what I consider
human, and the benefits for me are high."
Grotius|4.10.07 @ 9:01AM|#
stuartl,
Why is it one of the best again? Because there is no cost-benefit
analysis involved? I beg to differ - that period is just as
amenable to cost-benefit analysis as any other period in the human
reproductive cycle.
|4.10.07 @ 9:30AM|#
Grotius, you are correct, my wording was poor. I meant that prior to conception there is no cost, so no analysis is required. Nonetheless, if a line must be drawn, conception is as good (or better) then embrainment or enbreathment. It doesn't take religion to see that it is a convenient spot.
Grotius|4.10.07 @ 9:32AM|#
stuartl,
It doesn't take religion to see that one of the most convenient
periods to end a pregnancy is right after conception. No fuss, etc.
It is certainly far easier to deal with the issue at that time than
say two or three months later.
|4.10.07 @ 9:38AM|#
Doesn't the Bible say, or at least heavily imply, that
"humanness" begins at birth? Our "spririt" begins with our first
"breath"?
Too bad the Bible is irrelevant in this matter, because I kinda
like that idea, even though I am a devout atheist.
I see the difference between a blastocyst (or a fingernail or a
heart or whatever) and a human (in the moral sense) like this: the
blastocyst lacks the properties that cause us to consider humans to
be worthy of moral consideration. It isn't the case that humans
have value merely by virtue of being humans; rather, they have
value (i would say) because of what they are capable of (in
general), their mental properties, their ability to suffer, etc. We
don't say, "Don't kill that man! He is made of DNA!" Rather, we
might say, "Don't kill him! He has a wife and kids, he values his
life, he has a desire to live, he will feel great physical pain and
mental anguish, etc." The blastocyst lacks all of these
properties.
And before you say, "well, what about infants?" note that I would
contend that infants have a great many of the relevant properties,
and so our moral duties to infants are far greater than our duties
to blastocysts (to which I think we have none). I would also say
that our duties towards infants are not as great as our duties to
children and adults.
It is for these reasons that we flush fish down the toilet when
they die but often give dogs and cats a full burial.
VM|4.10.07 @ 9:49AM|#
"People as a rule apply "facts" to the moral positions they have
already adopted. Which is why new facts, even of the damning
variety, are so often easily discounted."
QFT!!!!!
Dave W.|4.10.07 @ 10:02AM|#
that up to 70% of naturally conceived embryos disppear in
the menstrual flow of women without ever having been registered as
existing ....
Further thought on this: if they were harvesting all the medical
research embryos directly from expelled menstrual blood, I doubt
this would be such a controversial issue.
Grotius|4.10.07 @ 10:02AM|#
VM,
QFT?
Anyway, I'm big on the whole limitations to human reason these
days. One has to delicately balance praising humans while admitting
our limitations.
VM|4.10.07 @ 10:14AM|#
quoted for truth.
Considering many of the discussions that have simmered here, there
are lots of examples of exactly that!
I liked how smoothly you put it!
|4.10.07 @ 8:22PM|#
It doesn't take religion to see that one of the most
convenient periods to end a pregnancy is right after
conception.
It also doesn't take much to see that the most convenient period to
end a pregnancy is before it begins, ie, either using
contraceptives or abstaining from sex altogether.
But we can't do without an insurance policy for people who want
consequence-free sex, can we?
|4.11.07 @ 3:07AM|#
Ron,
Since 'people' is a morally charged term, it's highly doubtful that
you can empirically and scientifically settle the
question whether blastocysts count as people. All you can do is
gather the facts about blastocysts and then bring moral reasoning
to bear on these facts.
crimethink,
No one needs to claim that if you don't grieve over something's
death, then the thing has no moral standing and it's morally okay
to kill it. That's implausible, as you've pointed out. But what's
far more plausible is this: if it makes no sense at all to grieve
over something's death, then the thing has no moral standing and
it's morally okay to kill it.
So let's look at some cases and ask whether it makes any sense to
grieve over its death. Your mother? Obviously yes. A starving
African child? Sure, it's sad to think of its death and if you cry
a little at the thought, then that makes complete sense. A
housefly? No, that would be stupid. A tadpole? No, of course not. A
blastocyst? No, that seems totally misplaced and senseless.
I suspect most of us here have these reactions. Maybe you don't
share these reactions -- if you're consistent, then I suspect you
won't share them. But if you do, then you should probably conclude
that blastocysts don't have any moral standing and that it's
morally okay to kill them.
|4.11.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Wow, this thread isn't dead yet. In that case:
Please respond to this argument then. Blastocysts are
nonviable, therefore not a human being.
A very easy response is that this isn't even a valid syllogism. It
would be one if you added a major premise, to the effect that "no
nonviable thing is a human being." Of course, if you did that, I'd
have to point out that it's far from evident that the premiss is a
true statement.
|4.11.07 @ 11:13AM|#
(I really had intended to use a single spelling for "premise" (or "premiss," if you prefer). I will appeal to authority and note that the dictionary lists both.)
|4.11.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Seamus: If I were to suffer whole brain death, please turn
off the respirator. BTW, embryos don't have brains.
This doesn't qualify as an answer to my question of "what evidence
would suffice to convince you that *you* were not [i.e., at
present] a human person worthy of the protection of the law." It is
rather, an answer to a different question, that of "what are the
circumstances that could occur to you that would cause you to cease
to be a person worthy of the protection of the law?" That's cool,
but I presume that your concept of "whole brain death" includes
irreversibility; that is, if what appeared to be brain death was in
fact a temporary condition, and your brain could start functioning
again within an hour, a month, or even up to nine months, that you
would not say that this was a case of "whole brain death," nor
would you conclude that you were no longer entitled to the
protection of the law. (You might decide that, if you were not
going to regain consciousness for nine months, you'd like the plug
pulled, but that's a far cry from concluding that others would have
the right to off you notwithstanding your wishes, the way they
would if they were dealing with a dead body.)
Conversely, I think crimethink would agree that if a blastocyst
could be shown that a blastocyst was "dead," under whatever
definition of death might be applicable to such a creature, then he
would have no problem with conducting research on that entity (or
no more problem than he would about research on your brain dead
corpse).
(So yeah, I guess I have to concede that there are certain kinds of
evidence that can lead to changed moral conclusions, but that's
only because of moral principles we have that are not dependent on
empirical facts, but that dictate what moral significance we attach
to different facts about which evidence has been presented.)
|4.11.07 @ 3:39PM|#
No one needs to claim that if you don't grieve over
something's death, then the thing has no moral standing and it's
morally okay to kill it. That's implausible, as you've pointed out.
But what's far more plausible is this: if it makes no sense at all
to grieve over something's death, then the thing has no moral
standing and it's morally okay to kill it.
Isn't "It makes no sense at all to grieve over something's death"
highly subject -- and worse, doesn't it still place the locus of
the entity's moral standing in the emotional reactions of others
rather than in the nature of the thing itself? I don't see how how
that's different from "Your entitlement to human rights depends on
whether you provoke a suitable emotional reaction from external
parties" which strikes me as a bizarre argument.
As it happens, I do know a couple that grieved when the wife
suffered an early miscarriage/spontaneous abortion. I don't have
details or firsthand experience with such situations, but the
husband reported that the thing was "literally a clump of cells."
Nevertheless they grieved as if they'd lost a child, and their
nurse sent them a sympathy (funeral-type) card, which they
appreciated.
They were not a couple of Bible-thumping pro-life whackaloons,
either -- as it happens, they were both agnostic, and also
pro-choice. However, they recognized the existence of a human
individual begins at conception as a biological fact. The husband
articulated his pro-choice stance in what I thought was a very
memorable way:
"When I was with the Rangers in Vietnam, I was partly or entirely
responsible for terminating several full-grown fetuses. I took no
joy in this, but it had to be done. I don't regret it either,
because it had to be done. Sometimes ending another human being's
life is the least bad option available to you. But we should at
least own up to what it is we're doing, rather than be all
mealy-mouthed about it and call it 'a clump of cells, nothing
more.' "
I don't agree entirely with his stance, but it's one I can
respect.
|4.12.07 @ 4:03AM|#
Stevo:
You write that the matter of a thing's being worthy of grief is
subjective. But if this is subjective, then (as far I can
see) so too is the related matter of having a moral right to life.
If you want to insist that all morality is subjective,
then that's not quite to the point when discussing a moral issue.
If you think the question of the appropriateness of moral emotions
is especially badly off (especially subjective), then I simply
don't see why.
"Your entitlement to human rights depends on whether you
provoke a suitable emotional reaction from external
parties" is plainly different from "Your entitlement to human
rights depends on whether you warrant a suitable emotional
reaction from external parties". The latter depends on the nature
of the thing in question just as much as human rights ever
did.
I suspect that, in the cases you mention, grief over the
spontaneous abortion was due to the missing out on a family, and
not due to the tragic and all-too-early death of a being with full
moral standing. Of course, if it was the latter, then I'll
continue to say (presuming that most are with me on this) that the
grief is misplaced.
I agree that it's mealy-mouthed to deny or downplay the moral
equivalence of a late-term fetus and a newborn infant. But it's
quite another matter -- and there's nothing mealy-mouthed about it
-- to deny moral standing to a zygote or a blastocyst or a newly
implanted embryo. (I mean, there's no bright line between child and
adult, but it would still be ridiculous to treat a toddler like an
adult.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245