Pius XII, from Humani Generis:
That is what REALLY needs to be emphasized. SOULS, not necessarily bodies. That is what I was taught in grade school, late 1940’s (even before the 1950 encyclical) and early 1950’s.
It said no such thing. It said: “the underlying problem with the Swiss law is that it allows rules to be built on the foundation of a notoriously subjective concept”. That is patently so. Misquoting undermines your case and this is a blatant case of misquotation.
The statements supporting human dignity are contradictory, as evidenced by the fact that the definitions of human dignity in the essays were, indeed, contradictory. That is a fact.
It is hard, in the circumstances to argue for the notion that laws should be based on the concept of the universal dignity of living things since that concept has resulted in such obviously absurd laws. The phrase in italics above is your inaccurate interpretation of the Nature argument (in other words your strawman). The Nature editorial does not, anywhere, argue that human beings should not be accorded rights which are not accorded to non-human animals and plants. It does argue, compellingly, that the concept of dignity is not a good basis for formulating bioethics.
No - you should learn to read for meaning - this is the slippery concept of dignity per se; no unbiased person reading that editorial could possibly interpret it as a fundamental attack on the idea that humans have rights that animals and plants do not have. Yours is the deep, fundamental misinterpretation. It is as it reads - an attack on the misuse of the concept of dignity to prevent experimental work on plants and animals.(even its sub-title tells you that:“The use of ‘dignity’ as the foundation for an ethical law in Switzerland is compromising research”.)
Sigh! You really *did *think that Nature was suggesting in their editorial that chimps (actually it was macaques) should have the same rights as humans. In fact, Nature was arguing the opposite.
It was an editorial, not a scientific paper. Would you like me to explain the difference, since you do seem to be labouring under a rather elementary misunderstanding? Are you seriously arguing that the scientific community, and a premiere journal in scientific research should not have and express an opinion on bioethics and the laws associated with scientific research? Surely not.
No, I’ve been cleaning the darned things ever since.The screen’s easy, it’s the wretched keyboard that gets gross.I hope you had a spittle guard over your keyboard and screen.
In this case, Nature argues against using the concept of dignity as the basis for law because, supposedly, the concept is subjective and definitions are contradictory. There was nothing in the article that said that the concept of “human dignity” was a meaningful and valid indicator. In fact, it said that the concept of “dignity” had no value in moral formation (apparently, these scientists are moral authorities somehow).
Well, you’re putting words into my mouth. I never said that. Talk about a straw-man. I merely quoted the text. It denied that the concept of dignity could be used as the basis for law or moral judgements. It proved that because, supposedly, the concept is subjective, contradictory and “slippery”.
You’re affirming what I said. Supposedly, the concept of “dignity” is too “slippery” to be used in this context. That is, the concept of dignity of animals as well as human dignity. That concept cannot be used in making laws or moral judgements. The concept is therefore rendered as valueless and meaningless.
If you’re saying that unqualified amateur philosophers should be free to give their opinions in the editorial pages of Nature then that sounds fine to me. I wouldn’t expect the scientific community to give its credentials on such matters before pronouncing on the moral law. Apparently a background in biology equips a person sufficiently to make prouncements on ethics, law and moral philosophy. We’re supposed to accept that because after all, they’re scientists.
I can’t speak for ricmat, but I think you’re missing the bigger picture. For myself, it’s not a concern about Nature magazine, but only in their failure to give any support for the concept of human dignity when faced with this kind of legislation. The magazine was not able to distinguish between dignity afforded to plants and animals versus that given to humans. As a result, Nature concluded that “dignity” was not useful as a basis for granting rights. They couldn’t argue that humans deserve more dignity because human beings possess an immortal soul, as a direct creation of God. So they claim that the concept of dignity cannot be used in the formulation of laws or moral norms. Can religious belief be used for the establishment of laws or moral judgements? Interestingly, that was not addressed in the pages of Nature magazine. I wonder why not.
There is a clear application of Darwinian theory in the shaping of societal laws. Since the ape is “the closest genetic relative to the human”, then apes should be protected by similar laws. This is the use of science to manipulate society and the moral laws of the community. Materialistic philosophy places apes and humans in relatively the same category – to be accorded similar rights.
Again, this is the consequence of Darwinism. Animals are accorded these rights because they are our so-called “evolutionary comrades”.
Reggie and I are on the same page.
Biology textbooks provide the scientific answer. The faith aspect does not qualify as science, so it should not be in a science textbook.
Correct. That is so.
No, it denies the efficacy of using dignity as the basis for determining law and moral choices, but that does not mean that the writer of the editorial or scientists in general do not distinguish between the rights of humans and the rights of non-human animals and plants. Of course they do so - they argue however that dignity is not a good concept to determine moral law because it can, patently, be misused. What one needs is a concept which is more robust than the concept of dignity.
Not so. No-one has denied the concept of human dignity. What has been challenged is the concept of dignity as a basis for determining moral choices and law, yes.
Actually you misquoted the text. You said:
The concept was challenged as a basis for determining moral choices, and rightly challenged as it has led to patent absurdity. Which does not mean, as you and ricmat would have it mean, that this editorial denies that humans and non-human animals and plants should be accorded different rights. It is the obvious absurdity of according to plants and animals the same rights as humans that the editorial is obviously arguing against. You are setting up a blatant strawman.
Are we supposed to be grateful that you condescend to allow those who conduct research to have and publish opinions on the ethical implications of that research. That’s simply foolish. It is clear that scientists on their own should not determine ethical standards with regard to research, but that does not prevent them from having an informed and illuminating opinion (especially since non-scientists routinely confuse the details and objectives of research). It is also clear that moral philosophers on their own should not determine the ethical standards, but that does not prevent them from having a powerful influence and illuminating these difficult matters. This is a discussion for society as a whole, taking into account the views of a wide range of opinions and specialists in various fields. And this is how it works in developed societies - a broad range of informed views are considered in making the ethical choices that are enshrined in law and in regulating the work that is done.