Catholic Eugenics?

[RyanL]

I’m not convinced your understanding of the philosophical aspects of these issues is as profound as you imagine .

I don’t think my understanding is (or needs to be) profound at all - it’s quite simple, actually. Most things which are true typically are. Things like, “It’s always morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.” Not that complex to say, not that hard to understand. Or so you would think. And while neuroscience may be your specialty, law and morality is mine. Please believe me when I say that your notion of the source of universal human rights (which aren’t so universal) is devoid of value.

I don’t think assuming that the mind is independent of the brain (a vastly complex physical system) makes it easier to give an intelligible account of free will…

It doesn’t matter whether you subjectively think that a soul can account for free will – what’s important is that a purely materialist worldview absolutely and with 100% certainty cannot.

I don’t intend (a choice I have made) to provide an exhaustive defense of free will on this thread; rather, I want you to see how stupid this conversation is if we don’t have it. If you want a simple defense of free will, spend some time considering these two words – “Thank you.” How irrational they are if we could not have done otherwise…

Here I loose you completely. Intelligence is important because it’s associated with, and in many cases causally related to, a large number of valuable social outcomes. And that is true independently of what view we have of the nasty problem of free will.

Ok. This is an example of how the philosophy underpinning this conversation is shameful. If we’re not free (i.e., no free will), we can’t choose to pursue one “social outcome” over another. Further, the word “valuable” connotes a moral (or at least utilitarian - another logical catastrophe!) distinction being made – that one path is a “good” to be pursued, and the other an “evil” to be avoided (or good vs. greater good, evil vs. lesser evil, etc.).

BUT…if we’re not free, making moral distinctions is ridiculous! (This includes efficiently and completely euthanasing particular races for any reason, BTW - no moral problem if we don’t have morals.) Do I praise my computer for recording my key strokes, or blame it for not being on mute? Of course not. How silly. Why? Because it has no choice. It cannot possibly do other unless I, as a free agent, make it do so. It simply executes a program…and that’s ALL YOU ARE if you deny free will. An automaton, executing a very complex program - you can do no more than the sum of causes permits, and you certainly can’t be “blamed” for any particular “choice”. All your guffaw about “love” or “arts” is complete chaff, unless we have free will.

Again, that’s just wrong for the reasons I outlined. It is not arbitrary to value advances in the theoretical and appliced sciences and the arts as something good.

It is arbitrary unless we are free to choose. What’s increasingly absurd is that you’re not even free to make an arbitrary distinction, since you have no choice as to whether or not to believe it - you simply must make it. You also can’t choose to advance something over anything else (you either must by compulsion of a complex series of causes…or not), and you certainly can’t call a particular thing “good.” You may only call it a result. Good is a moral distinction, and morality only applies to moral agents who can choose. You

And who would your un-chosen result be particularly “good” for (to use your wording)? Humans. Why do you value humans over anything else? “Intelligence,” you say. Humbug. Without free will, you cannot do otherwise than you do, irrespective of how “intelligent” you are. Just like a stomach cannot do other than digest, regardless of how efficiently it does so. Valuing humans over anything else (dolphins, chimps, flatworms!) is simply self-interested bigotry. There’s no good, objective “reason” (don’t worry, though - you could not “choose” to stop being a speciesist bigot even if there were). The brain is simply an organ executing a series of biochemical responses, just as the stomach digests.

It would again be completely arbitrary to value one organ over another. Is the heart better than the lungs? The kidneys over the liver? “But intelligence can help us get longer and healthier lives!” Yeah…so does a good colon.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

Intelligence is also, by the way, positively related to health and longevity and being able to function well in society in general (negative relation to crime and welfare dependance).

And who says these things are “good” or “evil”? Criminals can’t “choose” to commit crimes - they simply must. Punishing them makes as much sense as punishing a soda machine that doesn’t dispense your cola. Same with welfare. Same with social engineers - you cannot “choose” which path to pursue. Calling them “good” or “evil” is not useful terminology. They are either productive or counterproductive…and they’re not “free” to be either.

Secondly, you’re also assuming again your speciesist bigoted way (it’s not your fault - what a silly word “fault” now becomes! - you can’t choose to be otherwise) that humans living long and healthy lives is a good thing. For whom? The other creatures on the planet? Hardly! The universe? The universe doesn’t care. Bigotry hardly seems to be a proper rationale for advancing your agenda – but don’t worry, because again you’re unable to do otherwise. You have no free will. Moreover, you must start striking the words “good” or “beneficial” from your lexicon. Those are value judgments, and you (lacking free will) are categorically unqualified to “judge” anything.

It’s not about the atoms themselves, it’s about how they are organized in an incredibly complex system in such a way that the system (the human) has the properties we value: to think, to feel, to love etc.

Again, why on earth should we value a large clump of atoms more than the same number of atoms dispersed? What does it mean to say that this quantity of atoms “loves” another quantity of atoms?!? Who cares? In the first place, it’s completely irrational to say that a clump of inanimate objects (atoms) can become “animate” (From the Latin for “en-soul-ed”). It is simply performing the result of cause-and-effect, nothing more.

Truly, speaking about these things the way you do one would think that they’re actually valuable or that we can actually choose to pursue these!

You should think a bit more about this…

What’s good for the goose…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Larry1700]

It’s very tiring that you almost without exception manage to miss the point in my postings. You seem to say that unless we give full human rights to all fertilized egg cells in the world, then noone has human rights. I think my 8 year old daughter could see what’s wrong with that proposal.

I can certainly understand how your 8 year old daughter might see it that way, but I don’t understand how an adult could see it that way. As an adult, you’re fully aware of the changing whims of those in power, be they individual dictators or democratically elected governments. There must be **inherent, immutable dignity **of every human person. Otherwise, any rights granted today can be revoked tomorrow.

And as for the embryos, DNA, etc…
Human DNA means a human person. I’m sure you’ve heard this before, or you’ve forgotten, or you choose to ignore it because it doesn’t support your belief, but an acorn has all the genetic material it needs to become an oak tree. It is an oak tree, in the first stages of development. As the acorn takes root, a sapling grows (still an oak, but at another developmental stage). Over the years, the sapling grows into a fully-grown oak tree. Even when the oak tree gets a disease, and begins to lose it’s leaves, it’s still an oak tree, albeit a weaker one, or not a perfect specimen of one.

It’s the same with embryos. They are human, but at a different stage of development. Given the opportunity to develop, they become a child, then an adult . Finally, barring illness, death or injury, they age until say, 80-100 years old, and often lose some of their mental and physical capabilities. Nevertheless, they are still human, but at a later stage of development. They are still a person, entitled to basic human dignity.

Here’s something else you’ve probably heard before, but it bears repeating. A bald eagle egg is protected by the federal government. Why? Because it’s a bald eagle. Not fully developed, but still an eagle.

 

[Larry1700]

What moral conceit! I can honestly tell you that the reason (well, as far as I can judge by introspection) that I endorse eugenics is that I want good for the future. From where do you have the idea that the driving force is that I want to look down on other people?! It’s about as polite and true as if I would call all catholics self-righteous bigots…

Uh, well, you just called a Catholic morally conceited. Oh well, let’s move on.

I want good for the future, too, but in a different way. Your way is by weeding out the bad people in society. Mine is by acknowledging that all, no matter what their state in life, no matter what their mental or physical capabilities, still are humans (with a soul, by they way), and deserving of love and compassion. We either give them comfort in their current state of life, or help them out of it. We don’t eliminate them from society by isolation, or by killing them.

I want a good future for all. You want it for a select group.

 

[Academic]

Thanks for the clarification.

By this standard, at the moment an individual’s family and friends have died, or at least don’t care about that individual any more (i.e., no more “strong emotional ties”), then that individual ceases to have personhood status, and thus ceases to have moral rights. We could easily solve the homeless problem, couldn’t we?

Maybe I didn’t clarify enough, or maybe you deliberately distort my position to make it seem silly - I can’t judge. But I did say that it’s self-evident that all humans (postnatally) and later-stage embryos that possess at least some kind of minimal consciousness have human rights. That includes homeless . Adults which entered a vegetative state without any mental life (as far as we can judge) through disease, aging or trauma are special cases. There is “nobody in there” but my point was that we might still have good reasons to treat them (ethically) as fully human. Some would also argue that normal embryos are fully human because they have a unique DNA and they are already part of a process that uninterrupted will lead to a complete human. (I’m not saying I buy the latter argument.) In vitro embryos, on the other hand, are another story because they have no mental life and they will not develop into someone who has either, unless very special measures are taken. (If they were indeed fully human, would it be a moral duty to make sure that all fertilized embryos in a test tube get implanted, lest we commit murder? I think it’s easy to see that something is wrong with this position.)

 

[Larry1700]

would it be a moral duty to make sure that all fertilized embryos in a test tube get implanted, lest we commit murder?)

Yes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Again, simple. There will be a new set of criteria.

Until the criteria catch up with** them**, and they become the ones looked down upon.

 

[Academic]

Please believe me when I say that your notion of the source of universal human rights (which aren’t so universal) is devoid of value.

Some of the most ethical persons I know of have been atheists. There is a huge literature on human rights out there, which is entirely independent of any metaphysical assumptions.

It doesn’t matter whether you subjectively think that a soul can account for free will – what’s important is that a purely materialist worldview absolutely and with 100% certainty cannot.

Well, same thing there. There are different camps in analytical philosophy: some believe free will is incompatible with physicalism, some believe it is. What I meant was more that the whole idea of what constitutes a free act is very problematic.

I don’t intend (a choice I have made) to provide an exhaustive defense of free will on this thread; rather, I want you to see how stupid this conversation is if we don’t have it. If you want a simple defense of free will, spend some time considering these two words – “Thank you.” How irrational they are if we could not have done otherwise…

It is practically very useful for us humans to speak as if there were free will (and perhaps in fact psychologically impossible for us to speak as if there were none) even though in a strict philosophical sense there may be no truly free acts, or (more likely) the whole concept of a free act turns out incoherent.

Ok. This is an example of how the philosophy underpinning this conversation is shameful. If we’re not free (i.e., no free will), we can’t choose to pursue one “social outcome” over another. Further, the word “valuable” connotes a moral (or at least utilitarian - another logical catastrophe!) distinction being made – that one path is a “good” to be pursued, and the other an “evil” to be avoided (or good vs. greater good, evil vs. lesser evil, etc.).

Of course there are free choices in the sense that we use this term in every day life. The philosophical problem of whether these are truly free in a deeper sense (not predetermined by anything I assume - but then what/who decides the outcome?!) is another issue, which may not have much practical significance.

BUT…if we’re not free, making moral distinctions is ridiculous! (This includes efficiently and completely euthanasing particular races for any reason, BTW - no moral problem if we don’t have morals.) Do I praise my computer for recording my key strokes, or blame it for not being on mute? Of course not. How silly. Why? Because it has no choice. It cannot possibly do other unless I, as a free agent, make it do so. It simply executes a program…and that’s ALL YOU ARE if you deny free will. An automaton, executing a very complex program - you can do no more than the sum of causes permits, and you certainly can’t be “blamed” for any particular “choice”. All your guffaw about “love” or “arts” is complete chaff, unless we have free will.It is arbitrary unless we are free to choose. What’s increasingly absurd is that you’re not even free to make an arbitrary distinction, since you have no choice as to whether or not to believe it - you simply must make it. You also can’t choose to advance something over anything else (you either must by compulsion of a complex series of causes…or not), and you certainly can’t call a particular thing “good.” You may only call it a result. Good is a moral distinction, and morality only applies to moral agents who can choose. You

And who would your un-chosen result be particularly “good” for (to use your wording)? Humans. Why do you value humans over anything else? “Intelligence,” you say. Humbug. Without free will, you cannot do otherwise than you do, irrespective of how “intelligent” you are. Just like a stomach cannot do other than digest, regardless of how efficiently it does so. Valuing humans over anything else (dolphins, chimps, flatworms!) is simply self-interested bigotry.

.

I’ve met other people who jump to conclusions, but this is almost a world record . Unless we accept your nebulous concept of “free will”, a human is not more worthful than a flatworm?

The brain is simply an organ executing a series of biochemical responses, just as the stomach digests.

Well, what else? The complexity of the operations is of another order, though, and that matters.

It would again be completely arbitrary to value one organ over another. Is the heart better than the lungs? The kidneys over the liver? “But intelligence can help us get longer and healthier lives!” Yeah…so does a good colon

Mmm hmm

 

[Ani_Ibi]

(If they were indeed fully human, would it be a moral duty to make sure that all fertilized embryos in a test tube get implanted, lest we commit murder? I think it’s easy to see that something is wrong with this position.)

What is wrong with this position? Please explain your pov. Thank you.

 

[Academic]

Uh, well, you just called a Catholic morally conceited. Oh well, let’s move on.

I want good for the future, too, but in a different way. Your way is by weeding out the bad people in society. Mine is by acknowledging that all, no matter what their state in life, no matter what their mental or physical capabilities, still are humans (with a soul, by they way), and deserving of love and compassion. We either give them comfort in their current state of life, or help them out of it. We don’t eliminate them from society by isolation, or by killing them.

I want a good future for all. You want it for a select group.

The formulation “weeding out” is misleading. I’m all for a compassionate and loving relation between all humans, including those with unfortunate genetic make ups. To reduce the frequency of these genes in the future is not to “weed out” anyone. And where did I say certain members of society should be isolated or killed? You will answer that I said so about in vitro embryos, but as I have argued at length: there is no sound basis for regarding these as members of society with human rights, and if we try to act in such a way we would end up in a completely absurd - and yes, morally bad - situation. On that particular point I have good hopes, because I do think the large majority of educated people regard that position as (frankly) quite silly.

 

[Academic]

What is wrong with this position? Please explain your pov. Thank you.

I feel like I’ve explained why in vitro embryos are not people with human rights a hundred times now. The mass-fertilized test tube thought experiment just illustrates what absurd priorities we would end up with, should we take the opposite view seriously.

 

[Academic]

I can certainly understand how your 8 year old daughter might see it that way, but I don’t understand how an adult could see it that way. As an adult, you’re fully aware of the changing whims of those in power, be they individual dictators or democratically elected governments. There must be **inherent, immutable dignity **of every human person. Otherwise, any rights granted today can be revoked tomorrow.

We have to draw the line somewhere, after the best of our ability. You choose to draw it around having human DNA or not. I think that is both absurdly inclusive (in vitro embryos) and too exclusive (humans with deviant chromosomal sets e.g.).

And as for the embryos, DNA, etc…
Human DNA means a human person.

It sure as hell doesn’t, and your repeating that a 100 times won’t change that fact.

I’m sure you’ve heard this before, or you’ve forgotten, or you choose to ignore it because it doesn’t support your belief, but an acorn has all the genetic material it needs to become an oak tree.

Ok so now an isolated, complete human DNA molecule is also a person with full rights and an eternal soul?

A bald eagle egg is protected by the federal government. Why? Because it’s a bald eagle. Not fully developed, but still an eagle.

It’s not protected because it is an eagle, silly, but because if people make omelettes of these eggs the species will be extinct. Oh my…

 

[Academic]

…cont’d…

And who says these things are “good” or “evil”?

Everyone knows they are. If someone stabs you in the back, would you say “hm, difficult question, is this a good thing or a bad thing… who I am to judge”?

Criminals can’t “choose” to commit crimes - they simply must. Punishing them makes as much sense as punishing a soda machine that doesn’t dispense your cola.

The reason we punish criminals is to reduce future crime. That is also the reason we should avoid propagating genes that are coupled to high probability for criminal behavior.

Same with welfare. Same with social engineers - you cannot “choose” which path to pursue. Calling them “good” or “evil” is not useful terminology.

It is very useful terminology. We use it all the time. Philosophical problems, such as free will, the existence of other minds, the existence of the outer world etc are interesting, but rarely of practical significance in everyday life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I feel like I’ve explained why in vitro embryos are not people with human rights a hundred times now. The mass-fertilized test tube thought experiment just illustrates what absurd priorities we would end up with, should we take the opposite view seriously.

No, you’ve **said ** in vitro embryos are not people with human rights a hundred times, but you haven’t explained squat.

They are alive.

They have human DNA.

They have their own DNA.

Ergo they are living human beings.

 

[cpayne]

From another thread, here’s a argument on the “personhood” of embryos, zygotes, etc.:

A couple of people on this thread have mentioned the common philosophical distinction between “person” and “human.” Most of the time, left-leaning secularists [note to Academic: I am not necessarily putting you in this category] make that distinction to argue that “persons” have rights to life that mere “humans” do not, and so even if zygotes are “humans” they have no right to life until they achieve “personhood.” I thought I’d bring out Aquinas’s argument–essentially that there is no difference between a human and a person. Anything that is essential to the characterization of a species is always a part of that species (it involves its “substance,” in other words), while the non-essential parts are referred to as “accidents.” So a human could be a human without being red-haired, or an airline pilot, or good at tennis–those are “accidental” qualities. But to be a person is “substantial” in humans; the substance of personhood has to be there from the time human life begins, or the product is not human. Whether or not this human person is good at tennis will develop later, as a non-essential quality.

Here’s a more theological argument, too: Humans are created in God’s image, and God is personal in nature. Therefore, humans are personal in nature, from the moment they are humans.

You can see how this would apply to embryonic stem-cell research. Scientifically embryos are humans, so rationally they also possess human personhood. (And hence human rights.)

End of quote.

Further comments: Aquinas’s argument would still apply even if one rejects the “made in God’s image” argument (as I think has already been done on this thread). What has happened in the history of philosophy is that the argument “Zygotes aren’t human beings” was retrenched into “Well, whether or not zygotes are human beings, they aren’t human PERSONS, and only persons possess full moral standing and rights.” However, as Aquinas points out, personhood is a necessary and concomitant quality of every human in order for that human to even BE a human. That personhood might not be able to be fully expressed until later in the human’s development, but that’s true of a lot of things (sexuality, for instance). The personhood is still present.

 

[vern_humphrey]

From the Constitution:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(My emphasis)

Note how it is worded – “Person” is the larger category, and is synonymous with “human being.” “Citizen” is the smaller included category – some persons are citizens, some are not.

And all persons have the right to life.

 

[Jennifer123]

I thought I’d bring out Aquinas’s argument–essentially that there is no difference between a human and a person.

Thank you. I’m still waiting for Academia’s answer to previously posted question, Has he/she ever met a person who wasn’t a human?
I’d also like to know why human rights should be granted to a 1 day old newborn but not that same human when it was in the womb two days earlier, if I can simplistically sum up his/her argument about how it’s somehow obvious rights should be granted to the “living”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thank you. I’m still waiting for Academia’s answer to previously posted question, Has he/she ever met a person who wasn’t a human?
I’d also like to know why human rights should be granted to a 1 day old newborn but not that same human when it was in the womb two days earlier, if I can simplistically sum up his/her argument about how it’s somehow obvious rights should be granted to the “living”.

Some years ago, there was a case where a girl gave birth in the lady’s room while attending a high school prom. She threw the baby in the trash – and was charged and pled guilty.

Now, I defy Academia or anyone else to tell me that if she had first plunged her nail scissors into the soft spot when the baby’s head crowned, and then expelled the little corpse that would not be a crime.

All living human beings have a right to life. If they do not, then there are not human rights at all, only priviliges which the government grants and can withhold at will.

 

[Academic]

No, you’ve **said ** in vitro embryos are not people with human rights a hundred times, but you haven’t explained squat.

They are alive.

They have human DNA.

They have their own DNA.

Ergo they are living human beings.

Long live Sisyphos. I’ll try again.

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. 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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[Academic]

Thank you. I’m still waiting for Academia’s answer to previously posted question, Has he/she ever met a person who wasn’t a human?
I’d also like to know why human rights should be granted to a 1 day old newborn but not that same human when it was in the womb two days earlier, if I can simplistically sum up his/her argument about how it’s somehow obvious rights should be granted to the “living”.

I missed that question. No I don’t think I’ve met a person who wasn’t human, but I think many primate researchers would say that chimps are (somewhat simple) persons. And, who knows, there may be a lot of non-human persons out in the universe! I’m not sure what the point of the question is.

Your second example: I don’t think many people would say that so late fetuses lack all human rights. Not me anyway. Of course, one difference is that the fetus is still organically connected to and dependent on the mother for survival in a way which the born baby isn’t, so you can get extremely difficult moral decisions when the life of either of the two is in danger. Who can feel sure about what is right under such tragical circumstances? I don’t pretend to have the answer to all difficult moral questions! Also, I’ve tried to avoid a general abortion discussion since the thread is about eugenics.