Catholic Eugenics?

[RyanL]

You use the term “human” in an equivocal way.
…
It’s ok to kill single cells with human DNA. We do it everytime we scratch our nose and it’s morally the same if we do it to a fertilized egg cell too. Killing a single human cell is not to kill a human, and your use of the term “human being” for both these entities is deliberate obfuscation.

This would be funny if I thought it wasn’t a sincerely held belief.

It is you who continues to use “human” in an equivocal way.

I use “human” to denote a discrete, individual organism, a unitary whole, in the mammalian species homo sapiens. From embryo to carcass, a particular organism is either human or not. Science can show this *concretely *to be true for any particular organism.

You use it to denote any cell which happens to contain human DNA…like a skin cell on your nose…as well as individual organisms. That’s two meanings, and it’s both misleading and confusing.

equivocal: 1 a : subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse <an equivocal statement> b : uncertain as an indication or sign <equivocal evidence>

Sorry, Charlie. You’re simply wrong.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “chronological snobbery” but I feel pretty confident that my account of how we think about human rights is roughly correct.

What I mean is that you would afford a non-sentient human the same rights as sentient humans on the basis that that particular human HAS BEEN sentient. You afford no moral weight to killing a particular human if they HAVE YET TO BE sentient. Based on an accident of time, you exclude certain humans from the class of “those with rights.” That’s chronological snobbery.

And you’re also wrong about human rights.

I don’t know how you imagine that the idea that organisms with Homo sapiens DNA should have a special set of rights ever arose in anybody’s head.

Gee. I wonder. Why would anyone think that humans should have human rights.

The whole point of my argument is that human1 (having human DNA) does not have the same extension as human2 (having human rights). You can’t counter that argument by just asserting that human1=human2.

You have claimed (here and elsewhere) that some humans get “human rights” and other humans don’t.

I have countered by saying that all humans have human rights, and your exclusion of certain humans is based on snobbery, feelings, arbitrary and illogical distinctions and bad science.

So free will is something over and above the physical laws that govern the brain’s operation? Wow!

Didn’t you agree with me that reading Aristotle was a good idea?

Well, why is the puppet more valuable if some of its acts have free will then?

Because that would make the puppet unique among material things.

I think complexity is essential, but not just any complexity.

What complexity, then? Why is the complexity of synapses firing more complex or better than gastrointestinal juices doing their thing?

Purely arbitrary.

Ethics uses reason, but it is not maths.

Ethics uses reason and logic. A well defined syllogism is as certain as a mathematical proof, logically speaking.

In ethics its vital to examine whether your conclusions feel reasonable, and if you end up with bizarre conclusions, the natural response is to go back and try to localize where things went wrong on the way.

Bizarre conclusions like some humans don’t get human rights, or perhaps conclusions like some non-humans get human rights? Conclusions like “universal human rights” are not universal, specifically human, or even “rights” per se?

I agree. Very troubling, indeed.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

It seems to me that if human beings possess inalienable human rights, then those rights must attach to all human beings. I agree with Aquinas that since personhood is a quality of human beings, all human beings are persons.

A human being is a distinct individual of the human species.

So the only question is: when does a new individual of the human species have its beginning? This seems pretty simple.

At conception.

 

[cpayne]

Dear RyanL: How about this for a definition of a human being / human person: (1) the entity under question must have homo sapiens DNA; (2) this DNA must be uniquely expressed (i.e., it can’t be found in an organ or a wart–must be a separate DNA code); (3) the entity must have the capacity, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, to develop into a mature example of homo sapiens (and develop personal expression, i.e., a personality).

As far as I can tell, this would address all of Academic’s objections. It also would include as human beings / persons every conceptus, whether in the womb or in a petri dish.

 

[Larry1700]

Dear RyanL: How about this for a definition of a human being / human person: (1) the entity under question must have homo sapiens DNA; (2) this DNA must be uniquely expressed (i.e., it can’t be found in an organ or a wart–must be a separate DNA code); (3) the entity must have the capacity, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, to develop into a mature example of homo sapiens (and develop personal expression, i.e., a personality).

As far as I can tell, this would address all of Academic’s objections. It also would include as human beings / persons every conceptus, whether in the womb or in a petri dish.

Nope. Unfortunately it appears that Academic’s definition doesn’t include item 3 (capacity to develop into…) — for bald eagles or for humans.

 

[RyanL]

Furthermore, this would address the issue of the formation of a caste society…

Inequality makes me ill and we should strive for equality of outcome…Eliminating these differences will make it easier for one to pursue the magnanimous goal of equality of outcome.

Look, inequality will always exist.

Eliminate intellectual inequality, and you still have physical inequality. Eliminate physical inequality and you still have aesthetic inequality. Eliminate aesthetic inequality (good luck!) and you still have racial inequality. Eliminate racial inequality and you still have religious inequality. Eliminate religious inequality and you still have…

See what I mean?

Your end of intellectual equality would hardly be the end.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[cpayne]

Nope. Unfortunately it appears that Academic’s definition doesn’t include item 3 (capacity to develop into…) — for bald eagles or for humans.

Well, perhaps I expressed myself over-optimistically. I don’t mean that I think Academic would accept this definition. What I mean is that this definition would work logically. (I’m not really trying to persuade Academic at this point.) Item # 3 just points out that human life is a continuous spectrum of development from conception onward. Even if that life weren’t given the opportunity to develop (for example, frozen embryos), it WOULD be able to continue to develop if it were existing under normal circumstances. That capacity in itself (the fact that at its maturity it would be a mature example of a human being) highlights its humanity NOW–simply at an earlier level of development.

 

[cpayne]

Regarding previous parenthetical comment: There’s a difference between someone saying, “I disagree with your responses to my objections” and someone saying, “You have not responded to my objections.” It seems Academic’s ongoing strategy is to continue to raise the same objections (over and OVER), even though those objections have been addressed repeatedly, and then to say, “You have not responded to my objections.”

To be fair to Academic, however, I do think some of the posts on the thread have put a lot of words / ideas in his mouth that he didn’t strictly say. (Okay, Academic, but that’s as far as I go in sticking up for you. I still think your view is wrong wrong wrong.)

 

[Larry1700]

Look, inequality will always exist.

I’m reminded of an old Star Trek episode, where the folks on the Enterprise encountered beings that were white on one side, and black on the other side.

Kirk’s gang couldn’t understand why they couldn’t get along, so they explained somewhat incredulously, “Don’t you see? He’s white on the right side/black on the left, and I’m black on the right side/white on the left?!?!?”

They went on fighting, and the Enterprise went on where no man had gone before.

 

[Academic]

You use it to denote any cell which happens to contain human DNA…like a skin cell on your nose…as well as individual organisms. That’s two meanings, and it’s both misleading and confusing.

I brought in the skin cell to illustrate how unreasonable it is to say that individual cells have human rights. An egg cell is just a cell which is programmed to develop into an embryo if placed in a womb. I could come up with other scenarios too: what if we cleave an egg cells into clones in the lab? Are all these different cell ensembles suddenly new humans with human rights? What if we find a way to reprogram the skin cell I just scratched from my nose into an egg cell that starts dividing? DNA transfer experiments? It’s not humans, it’s awesome configurations of organic material with potential to develop in different ways. The medieval idea of a human with an immortal soul created at the moment of conception just doesn’t fit contemporary biological knowledge.

Based on an accident of time, you exclude certain humans from the class of “those with rights.” That’s chronological snobbery.

It’s an adaption to human psychology rather than an ethical question. The main difference is that people are psychologically unable to completely stop thinking of the person that was there before the mind left. For similar reasons, it would create a lot of unease in society if we had a policy of eliminating people in vegetative state. Noone has a similar relation to a Petri dish embryo.

Gee. I wonder. Why would anyone think that humans should have human rights.

I’ve outlined the reasons we think so. And they are not like “hmm… here is a cell with a very interesting chromosomal structure… it’s so interesting it has to be given a very special set of rights we call human rights.” It’s not about DNA, it’s about behavior in a broad sense.

I have countered by saying that all humans have human rights, and your exclusion of certain humans is based on snobbery, feelings, arbitrary and illogical distinctions and bad science.

Snobbery? Nah… Feelings? Certainly. A satisfactory ethical model has be coherent but also feel right. Arbitrary? No, I’m trying to destillate what I think is the essential core in our idea about human rights (not DNA!). Bad science? Que?

Didn’t you agree with me that reading Aristotle was a good idea?

I enjoy reading him, but not as some definitive truth about how the world works.

Because that would make the puppet unique among material things.

I don’t get what you mean. If it’s a nice puppet, isn’t that enough?

What complexity, then? Why is the complexity of synapses firing more complex or better than gastrointestinal juices doing their thing?

There’s no question it is more complex, by any complexity measure. But synaptic activity is special because it is the neural underpinning of the human mental qualities we all treasure: thinking, feeling, loving…

Ethics uses reason and logic. A well defined syllogism is as certain as a mathematical proof, logically speaking.

Sure, but for an ethical system to be of any interest - to me at least - it can’t just be a flawless deduction of some rules from a set of axioms. It also has to convince emotionally, and as you well know there are a lot of competing ethical systems around.

Bizarre conclusions like some humans don’t get human rights, or perhaps conclusions like some non-humans get human rights

I think 99% of humanity agrees that if some extra-terrestials with a similar behavioral complexity as ours appear they shouldn’t be treated like inanimates (call it giving non-humans human rights if you like). Most people find it strange to give human rights to egg cells too. I think you ended up in this strange position by trying to fit the dramatic, pre-scientific idea of humans as unique undividable spiritual beings with an eternal soul, with contemporary scientific knowledge of the biochemical soup that is our true starting point. And so the sacred soul has become the sacred unique DNA and the sacred moment of conception. It doesn’t work so well…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Long live Sisyphos. I’ll try again.

Long live sophistry, you mean.

The only reason anybody thinks that humans should have rights to begin with, is because we respect the mental properties of normal adults: their consciousness, their ability to think, feel, act, love etc. That is the starting point.

Wrong. Show me where the Founding Fathers said that.

In particular, if no humans ever advanced past the fertilized egg stage, it wouldn’t make sense to give them any more rights than other unicellular organisms. I take this as obvious.

If you were a cow, would you prefer clover or alfalfa?

The answer is, “That’s rediculous! I’m not a cow!”

And that’s the same answer to your argument, “That’s rediculous! The biological conditions you set – humans never advancing beyond the fertilized egg stage – don’t exist.”

But then things get a bit more complicated. As you like to emphasize, it would be unreasonable to have consciousness/higher mental life as a necessary condition for human rights in every case, and it’s difficult to draw the line. It appears reasonable to most of us, and it is in accordance with the psychology of most of us, to extend the idea of human rights also to e.g. later stage embryos, which have a rudimentary mental life (probably), severely retarded people, demented, brain damaged and so on and so other. For each of these categories one can see that there are reasons not to regard them as rightless.

When you do that, you draw an arbitrary line – and anyone at all can fall on the wrong side of the line.

In addition, you destroy the concept of human rights – they become only priviliges under your theory.

But these are really extensions that arise from the original idea, i.e. that normal humans are worthy of respect. The motivation is definitely not that there is something morally magical about having Homo sapiens DNA in itself!

No. All humans are worthy of respect.

So, in conclusion, what I’m saying is that many of these “extensions” make sense, but an unconditioned extension to any fertilized cell that happens to arise in a lab setting does not. There are several reasons, e.g.: these cells lack any mental property, they lack ability by themselves to develop into a human in the environment where they are, and noone could possibly develop any serious emotional attachment to them. In fact, I think this whole idea that there is a crystal clear difference between what is a human and not is doomed. There always be a gray zone where it’s difficult to tell, and where there will be no consensus. But that gray zone is far from the in vitro embryo, in my opinion.

And I’m saying your opinion is all you have – there is no bright line that you can draw to distinguish amongst humans. We are all human, and we all have the basic right to life.

 

[Academic]

Regarding previous parenthetical comment: There’s a difference between someone saying, “I disagree with your responses to my objections” and someone saying, “You have not responded to my objections.” It seems Academic’s ongoing strategy is to continue to raise the same objections (over and OVER), even though those objections have been addressed repeatedly, and then to say, “You have not responded to my objections.”

Is that true? I have pointed out what’s unreasonable with the “human DNA gives human rights” hypothesis, and I’ve given an alternative sketch of how I think we do come to the conclusion that humans have rights, which I don’t think anyone has countered. In fact, some discussants seem to agree with my criteria for human rights: at least they argue rather that early fetuses have consciousness (a much more reasonable criterion of human rights).

To be fair to Academic, however, I do think some of the posts on the thread have put a lot of words / ideas in his mouth that he didn’t strictly say.

More than that, I’m being accused of supporting murder and I don’t know what. I’m a bit shocked by the crudity and vulgarity of some of the arguments in this pious forum, to be honest.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you really believe I have these opinions or do you create your evil straw man to make me appear crazy to the casual reader? The scenario you describe is of course more or less equivalent to infanticide,

Okay, suppose the baby was born a week premature? Would that make it okay?

How about a month premature?

How about a doctor inserting an instrument into the womb, cutting the baby up and extracting it?

The point? There is no bright, shining line where you can say, “On this side, you’re human, on the other side you’re not.” The only bright, shining line is when the egg is fertilized and forms its own human DNA.

but it has no relevance to the issues I’ve tried to discuss. And if you yourself seriously believe that plunging a knife into the head of a 9-month fetus is equivalent to washing away a in vitro fertilized egg cell you have a pretty twisted view of things.

And if you yourself seriously believe that plunging a knife into the head of a 9-month fetus isn’t equivalent to washing away a in vitro fertilized egg cell you have a pretty twisted view of things.

 

[Academic]

And that’s the same answer to your argument, “That’s rediculous! The biological conditions you set – humans never advancing beyond the fertilized egg stage – don’t exist.”

Sigh. I hope some of you realize that this is irrelevant for the argument.

When you do that, you draw an arbitrary line – and anyone at all can fall on the wrong side of the line.

We all try to draw the line as well as we can. I don’t know why my drawing is more arbitrary than yours; I at least try to back it up by argument. Of course you could say that yours is not arbitrary because God and the Founding Fathers told you where to draw it. But even so, they must have had a reason for drawing it where they drew it, and either you supply that or it’s end of discussion.

 

[Academic]

Dear RyanL: How about this for a definition of a human being / human person: (1) the entity under question must have homo sapiens DNA; (2) this DNA must be uniquely expressed (i.e., it can’t be found in an organ or a wart–must be a separate DNA code); (3) the entity must have the capacity, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, to develop into a mature example of homo sapiens (and develop personal expression, i.e., a personality).

As far as I can tell, this would address all of Academic’s objections. It also would include as human beings / persons every conceptus, whether in the womb or in a petri dish.

Well, I have no big problems with that as a definition of human being, but it includes a lot of entities which are most definitely not persons, as the term is used in psychology (i.e. some minimum requirement of a mental life). And to me persons, and possibly certain human beings that have partial personhood, have moral rights.

 

[Academic]

The point? There is no bright, shining line where you can say, “On this side, you’re human, on the other side you’re not.”

Oh, I quite agree. There is a big grey zone and we should stay away from that. However, it’s quite clear that as we come down to 1-, 2-, 4-cell embryos in a test tube we are on the safe side. These are not moral persons.

The only bright, shining line is when the egg is fertilized and forms its own human DNA.

It’s a distinct biological event in the life of the embryo, for sure, but not a distinct event with regard to its moral status.

And if you yourself seriously believe that plunging a knife into the head of a 9-month fetus isn’t equivalent to washing away a in vitro fertilized egg cell you have a pretty twisted view of things.

I don’t know, but I really can’t understand how you can write this!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sigh. I hope some of you realize that this is irrelevant for the argument.

Basing your argument on biological conditions that do not exist – that human embryos never develop into mature humans – is indeed irrelevant.

We all try to draw the line as well as we can. I don’t know why my drawing is more arbitrary than yours;

Because I can show that on one side of my line, whatever exists does not have human DNA, and on the other it does.

You can’t do that with your argument.

I at least try to back it up by argument. Of course you could say that yours is not arbitrary because God and the Founding Fathers told you where to draw it. But even so, they must have had a reason for drawing it where they drew it, and either you supply that or it’s end of discussion.

How many times have I pointed out that:

1. The embryo is alive (if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, now would we?)
2. The human embryo has human DNA.
3. The human embryo has its own human DNA.

What have you ever offered to counter that, except, “Well, I disagree?”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh, I quite agree. There is a big grey zone and we should stay away from that. However, it’s quite clear that as we come down to 1-, 2-, 4-cell embryos in a test tube we are on the safe side. These are not moral persons.

You are exactly wrong. As I said, I can show the embryo is alive, has human DNA and has its own DNA. You cannot find such an event anywhere else that allows you to clearly distinguish between the human being and the non-human.

It’s a distinct biological event in the life of the embryo, for sure, but not a distinct event with regard to its moral status.

It is** the** biological event that makes the human being – and you can’t find any other event with that watershed status.

I don’t know, but I really can’t understand how you can write this!

I put my index fingers on the home keys and type away.

I say it because it’s true. The embryo is alive, has human DNA and has its own DNA. It is a living human being.

 

[Academic]

Basing your argument on biological conditions that do not exist – that human embryos never develop into mature humans – is indeed irrelevant.

The point is this. If there were creatures with human DNA, behaving like flatworms, noone would come up with the idea that they should have special human rights. On the other hand, if we met people whose behavior was indistinguishable from humans, but they lacked human DNA, it would be monstrous to deny them human rights.

The point with this type of thought experiments is to show how our concepts work. In this case the main message is that behavior and consciousness are relevant to moral status, whereas possessing or not possessing a particular string of DNA is not (in itself). I’m sorry, I can’t explain it better.

How many times have I pointed out that:

1. The embryo is alive (if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, now would we?)

1. The human embryo has human DNA.

1. The human embryo has its own human DNA.

What have you ever offered to counter that, except, “Well, I disagree?”

I think I rather agree . What I’m saying is that none of these three properties has any particular ethical relevance. Not all living creatures have human rights. Having a particular DNA with a particular string of nucleotides, is in itself morally irrelevant (as the above thought experiment illustrates). And why should having a unique DNA be decisive? Don’t twins have human rights?

 

[Academic]

It is** the** biological event that makes the human being – and you can’t find any other event with that watershed status.

Yeah, but the whole idea of finding a watershed event is futile and even dangerous. Biological systems develop gradually; there will always be gradients. Moral status is also acquired gradually during normal fetal development, I would assume. I even doubt there is any particular time point at which the embryo magically gets human rights. As I said, there is an unclear grey zone.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yeah, but the whole idea of finding a watershed event is futile and even dangerous.

Nope – there is a clear, bright shining line. At conception.

Now I know you don’t like that, but it’s there.

Biological systems develop gradually; there will always be gradients. Moral status is also acquired gradually during normal fetal development, I would assume.

You assume wrong. The embryo is human – just as human as you are and with the same basic rights.

I even doubt there is any particular time point at which the embryo magically gets human rights. As I said, there is an unclear grey zone.

There is no gray zone. The embryo is human, period.