Is there a rational basis for morality in a purposeless universe?

[Peter_Plato]

Human, human, human - so what? Why is membership of the human species more important than sentience? Why should it be? Can you provide substantial reasons for valuing nonsentient human life above sentient nonhuman life? I doubt it.

An ideal for a merely sentient being would be heightened pleasure and satisfaction. So this goal of pleasure satisfaction is consistent with drug induced euphoria. The ultimate aim of science should, then, be development of pleasure drugs to heighten “sentience” and a corresponding set of drugs to satisfy each desire. Sounds like a fulfilling existence. :whacky:

If, however, sentience serves more as a set of safety sensors to assist in the developing of the more valuable essential nature that each human being is capable of and a “window” to allow the experiencing of that existence, then sentience is only a secondary attribute and ought not to be taken as the principle one.

Your sentience paradigm is problematic in other ways, as well. It is necessarily a limitation on how we see and value the world around us.

If a tiger, or any other creature, only has value to the extent that it is not a threat to one’s sentience or to the extent that it has some sentient appeal, then the tiger has no value in and of itself. Essentially, it is valueless except in relation to the sentient pleasures of the receiving ego.

Extend that to persons. Persons, likewise, in your view, are valueless in and of themselves, but valued only to the extent that they contribute to some “sentient” pleasure of your ego. In effect, loving another for who they are, not for what they do for me, becomes a nonsensical notion.

My point would be that your sentience paradigm is essentially ego centered (self-absorbed) because it cannot ever become self-transcendent and value others for who they are and the world around you for what it is, but only for what they/it contribute to your ego (sentience.)

Your world view is also inherently self-limiting because there would be no mechanism for self-transcendence. It is entirely consistent with some base hedonistic existence because mere sentience has no way of distinguishing the value of some pleasures from others. If some pleasures are indeed more valuable than others, what standard would be used to distinguish them, other than perhaps quantity? To suggest some other measure would be to imply that a higher standard than mere sentience exists, that standard overrides sentience (truth? beauty? goodness?), and the purpose of sentience is to be a vehicle or means to that greater end.

Human, human, human - so what? Why is membership of the human species more important than sentience? Why should it be?

Perhaps, even under your own world view, because the individual in question will become, all things being equal, capable of far greater sentience than a chicken? The potential should count. If not, if it is only the current state that matters, then the argument could be made that you as a sentient being will only be sentient for a short period of time, so what would be wrong with hastening the process? Killing another “person”, in effect, becomes inconsequential because it merely reduces the sentient being to a non-sentient one so their value ipso facto has been rendered a non-issue. I didn’t kill a sentient being - look it isn’t sentient any more, so I can’t be convicted of killing “someone.” Their current lack of sentience proves they are not a person.

Of course, I have no credible reason for believing this inane line of argumentation will not work it’s way into the justice system and overthrow all laws against killing, the way things are going. That’s the problem with a baseless, reductionist system of ethics.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then there is the fact that a strong sense of morality can itself be a double-edged sword, psychologically – it can make people both more principled, and more judgmental. It can make them more humble, in one sense --more arrogant, in another; more submissive, in one sense – in another, more domineering. There is indeed a psychological danger in feeling able to say, “if you disagree with me, you’re disagreeing with God. Therefore, I have the right to insist that you agree with me.”

Of course, but the opposite view, that there is no moral authority and therefore no one (not even God) has the right to insist that others agree, is likewise an insane world view.

In the end it comes down to compelling reasons for accepting principles and I see no reason for thinking that a view of God as truth and truth as God entail either of the above. It is a matter of carefully and honestly working out the reasoning behind each step.

There may be disagreements, but the disagreement may come from two sources.

1. an inferior world view
2. reasoned and valid insight

There are, however, amoral individuals who will insist in principle that no moral system whatsoever, has a right to insinuate to them what they must do. No amount of reasoning will ever overcome such an amoral perspective because this position denies the validity of all moral systems with a claim that, “Nothing outside of me has the right to tell me what I must do!” This view denies morality at its root - no moral ought is accepted, in principle.

Didn’t the Casey Decision effectively enshrine this amoral perspective in the law? Each individual has the right to decide for themselves the nature of meaning and value, effectively undermining the foundation of law? A house divided against itself…

 

[JDaniel]

Human, human, human - so what? Why is membership of the human species more important than sentience? Why should it be? Can you provide substantial reasons for valuing nonsentient human life above sentient nonhuman life? I doubt it. That is why I consider it an arbitrary distinction. I can assure you, I’m well aware that a human foetus possesses a unique combination of human DNA from the moment of conception, and is quite alive from that point. But that is not what is at issue as far as I am concerned.

Sair:

Looks to me you are making a valuation claim on your own, based upon your own personal whims. (Don’t you think we should be included?) I would make a valuation claim for priority over yours based upon the continuity of existentiality. My claim would go like this: living human creatures come to be. Their existential continuity is synonymous with them remaining in existence. Their value is the value we can ascribe to them based upon a number of potency variables. Such variables would include (but not be limited to):

1. 
   *] Health of the human creature’s parents;
   *] racial symbiosis of the parents ;
   *] potential for successful upbringing;
   *] potential for its successful completion its continuity of growth to maturity;
   *] potential of its contribution to its society;
   *] potential of the society wherein the human creature comes to be;
   *] economic potential of the core family (relative to schooling , geography and; opportunity);
   *] education potential of the neighborhood;
   *] past successes out of that society;
   *] longevity of the new human creature;
   *] health of the new human creature;
   *] calculated potentiality to sense pain and pleasure.
   
   I’m sure there are a few that I’ve forgotten and I invite others to contribute to this list.
   
   So, from this it is clear that two beneficial purposes can be served from this understanding of which humans live and which die:
   1. 
      *]the maximization of benefit to the respective society, and
      *]the maximization of benefit to its respective human creatures.
      
      As they say, “two birds with one stone!” Therefore, it would seem to make the most sense to ensure the existential continuity of human creatures in highly industrialized nations, but, the same is certainly not necessarily the case for human creatures conceived in under-developed nations. (And, we have not talked yet about the world’s dwindling food supplies and medical care.) Therefore, I would say that abortion be made acceptable and easily available in under-developed countries, but, based on this simple, pragmatic basis, not so in industrialized nations.
      
      So, we shall set up a system of rewards and punishments for all of the countries in the world, and their respective populations: in industrialized countries, bringing new (human) creatures to term will be rewarded, while, in under-developed countries it will be punished. Likewise, the inverse shall obtain.
      

      If a being lacks any capacity for pleasure or pain - lacks sentience - it has no interests, and therefore no rights. Even the argument surrounding the rights of comatose individuals stands upon a different ground to that surrounding the supposed rights of a nonsentient foetus. The unconscious individual has had interests, and has had the opportunity to form relationships; what’s more, there is the consideration of the effect upon others - how many people would consent to anaesthesia for surgery, for example, or even find it easy to sleep, if they thought their lives would be at stake whilst unconscious? A newly conceived foetus, human or otherwise, has never had any interests. The only interests and rights involved are those of the people who care about bringing the foetus into existence - or otherwise. Those interests are entirely the parents’.

      Based upon the aforementioned parameters, we should set time limits by which the comatose must come back to sentience. If they don’t respond in three months, they should be regarded as human creatures of little or no value to their respective societies, and all life support will be shut down. A consideration of one person’s effects on that person’s family should not out-weigh its benefits to the whole society. Newly conceived fetuses have tremendous potential, when conceived in industrialized nations, and will become the replacements for any who die, or are put to death. But, if at three months old, they do not respond to stimuli, they should face the same fates as the comatose.
      

      It is simply realistic to point out that a first-trimester human foetus has the same capacity for sentience as a cauliflower - perhaps even less.

      But, I don’t care about the human creature’s capacity to feel pain or pleasure. All I care about is its potential for beneficiality, and therefore, its existential continuity.
      

      Dispassionate, certainly; but if ethical consideration is to be applied with a true sense of equality, then species membership cannot be its basis, any more than race or gender or social class can be its basis.

      Exactly. Only the above parameters will be the basis.
      

      All are arbitrary distinctions.

      Not on my list!
      

      A more solid common ground is required, and so far, sentience - the capacity to experience pleasure and pain - is the most solid ground we have.

      What you seek is what you get (above).
      
      Don’t you agree that beneficiality is superior to sentience? After all, sentience is just a plus for the human creature, isn’t it?
      
      God bless,
      jd

 

[Portofino]

An ideal for a merely sentient being would be heightened pleasure and satisfaction. So this goal of pleasure satisfaction is consistent with drug induced euphoria.

If pleasure is the highest good, then the ideal form of pleasure would be one that does not bring pain and misery in its wake. Addiction to physical pleasure fails this test (as Epicurus attested). The drug addict or alcoholic proves this point, in that it is a pleasure that leads down the road to hell (suffering). It is not freedom, but a form of slavery (being controlled by dependence).

It also becomes a vicious circle, because it works in reverse – one has relied on drugs, alcohol, or sex, in the first place, because one is already in pain mentally (through stress, anxiety, or depression) and is seeking an escape. One is trying to self-medicate.

Epicurus did believe that the absence of physical pain was a great good (no hunger, no extreme cold, no sickness), but that the ultimate source of happiness was in one’s state of mind.

, however, sentience serves more as a set of safety sensors to assist in the developing of the more valuable essential nature that each human being is capable of and a “window” to allow the experiencing of that existence, then sentience is only a secondary attribute and ought not to be taken as the principle one.

There is Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs,” whereby – once the more “basic” needs are fulfilled - other needs arise. He conceived of basic maintenance needs as being at the bottom of the pyramid (food, clothing, shelter). Once these were satisfied, however, other needs became more acute – such as the need for affection and companionship, as well as the need for self-actualization (fulfilling work, a sense of purposeful activity).

a tiger, or any other creature, only has value to the extent that it is not a threat to one’s sentience or to the extent that it has some sentient appeal, then the tiger has no value in and of itself.

This is exactly how humans *do * think, in relation to pets. Pets have value as companions; therefore, we value them in themselves. Chickens, pigs, or cows, on the other hand, are generally not valued in this way. Their primary value to us is as sources of food and nourishment.

Meanwhile, we are indignant at the idea of eating cats or dogs.

Persons, likewise, in your view, are valueless in and of themselves, but valued only to the extent that they contribute to some “sentient” pleasure of your ego. In effect, loving another for who they are, not for what they do for me, becomes a nonsensical notion.

When the pleasure we derive from others is non-material in nature (such as the pleasure of companionship), we do value them for themselves. This is in the nature of bonds of affection. This is because they have emotional value to us. Ultimately speaking, being in their company gives us emotional pleasure. This form of valuing does transcend self, ultimately. If you say, “I love them for who they are,” you are still deriving pleasure from them (the pleasure of contemplating them, and the pleasure of being in their company). But you are still valuing them for themselves, as ends in themselves. This is on a personal level.

On a social level, individual rights are what give others value, in-and-of themselves. It doesn’t matter to whom the murdered person was valuable. That person had rights, and no other individual had the right to violate them. What makes this cohere is the obvious interest in having rights – we value our own lives as ends in themselves, and the lives of our loved ones (our parents, our children, our friends) as ends in themselves. That makes for millions of people who do not want to be treated as a mere means, nor want their family and friends to be treated this way, and who will fight or even kill those who would violate that desire. If people become too aware of being treated as mere means, there is social unrest – strikes; riots; insurrections.

I’ve been thinking of the way in which so much of what we call “social progress” has not relied on the altruism of the oppressor. It tends to involve oppressed groups who – in defense of their *own *interests – organize and make life difficult for their oppressors (therefore, for the oppressors to stop oppressing is in their self-interest). The civil rights movement is a case in point – the marches; the boycotts; the rallying of public opinion. You are trying to making it hard for your oppressors, so that – for selfish reasons – they stop oppressing you, and grant you equal rights. That’s seemingly been the only fail-safe answer to this question of, “why not treat others mere means, rather than as ends in themselves?” Those others that are being treated as mere means will band together, and will make your life extremely difficult

The birth of the U.S. was similar – boycotts; protests; finally, a declaration of war. It was as if the people of the United States were telling the King of England, “you need to ask yourself an important question – is it worth it?” This may not be the most inspiring means of social change; it would have been much more inspiring if England, out of the kindness of its heart, granted independence to the American colonies (or to India); or for white Americans, out of the goodness of their hearts, to grant rights to black Americans, even if black Americans were too polite to ask. Nonetheless, showing a willingness to fight for one’s rights – and to make noise – and to insist on equal treatment, has proven the surest means of being treated as an end, and not merely a means. One has shown a refusal to be treated as a mere means. One has pushed back.

 

[Sair]

Sair:

Looks to me you are making a valuation claim on your own, based upon your own personal whims. (Don’t you think we should be included?) I would make a valuation claim for priority over yours based upon the continuity of existentiality. My claim would go like this: living human creatures come to be. Their existential continuity is synonymous with them remaining in existence. Their value is the value we can ascribe to them based upon a number of potency variables. Such variables would include (but not be limited to):

1. 
   *] Health of the human creature’s parents;
   *] racial symbiosis of the parents ;
   *] potential for successful upbringing;
   *] potential for its successful completion its continuity of growth to maturity;
   *] potential of its contribution to its society;
   *] potential of the society wherein the human creature comes to be;
   *] economic potential of the core family (relative to schooling , geography and; opportunity);
   *] education potential of the neighborhood;
   *] past successes out of that society;
   *] longevity of the new human creature;
   *] health of the new human creature;
   *] calculated potentiality to sense pain and pleasure.
   
   I’m sure there are a few that I’ve forgotten and I invite others to contribute to this list.
   
   So, from this it is clear that two beneficial purposes can be served from this understanding of which humans live and which die:
   1. 
      *]the maximization of benefit to the respective society, and
      *]the maximization of benefit to its respective human creatures.
      
      As they say, “two birds with one stone!” Therefore, it would seem to make the most sense to ensure the existential continuity of human creatures in highly industrialized nations, but, the same is certainly not necessarily the case for human creatures conceived in under-developed nations. (And, we have not talked yet about the world’s dwindling food supplies and medical care.) Therefore, I would say that abortion be made acceptable and easily available in under-developed countries, but, based on this simple, pragmatic basis, not so in industrialized nations.
      
      So, we shall set up a system of rewards and punishments for all of the countries in the world, and their respective populations: in industrialized countries, bringing new (human) creatures to term will be rewarded, while, in under-developed countries it will be punished. Likewise, the inverse shall obtain.
      
      Based upon the aforementioned parameters, we should set time limits by which the comatose must come back to sentience. If they don’t respond in three months, they should be regarded as human creatures of little or no value to their respective societies, and all life support will be shut down. A consideration of one person’s effects on that person’s family should not out-weigh its benefits to the whole society. Newly conceived fetuses have tremendous potential, when conceived in industrialized nations, and will become the replacements for any who die, or are put to death. But, if at three months old, they do not respond to stimuli, they should face the same fates as the comatose.
      
      But, I don’t care about the human creature’s capacity to feel pain or pleasure. All I care about is its potential for beneficiality, and therefore, its existential continuity.
      
      Exactly. Only the above parameters will be the basis.
      
      Not on my list!
      
      What you seek is what you get (above).
      
      Don’t you agree that beneficiality is superior to sentience? After all, sentience is just a plus for the human creature, isn’t it?
      
      God bless,
      jd

1. 1. 
      You appear to have expended some effort here in attempting to make an argument from absurdity. The use of sentience as the basic criterion for moral consideration does not reduce to an argument from utility, unless you distort it out of all recognition, as you’ve tried to do here.

 

[JDaniel]

You appear to have expended some effort here in attempting to make an argument from absurdity. The use of sentience as the basic criterion for moral consideration does not reduce to an argument from utility, unless you distort it out of all recognition, as you’ve tried to do here.

Sair:

Call it what you will, but I think it carries as much or more weight than your theory. My argument is an argument from existential continuity. It’s purely naturalistic, and very utilitarian.

Yours, on the other hand, has no benefit, and appears to be motivated by a sort of selfishness.

You attempt to use ‘sentience’ as the guide of morality, but probably do not know the physiological implications of a preborn human. For example that, “Fertilization normally takes place within one day of intercourse but can occur up to six days later.[32] [33] At fertilization, the genetic composition of a preborn human is formed.[34] This genetic information determines gender, eye color, hair color, facial features, and influences characteristics such as intelligence and personality.[35]”

And, “Genetically speaking, with the exception of identical twins,[36] [37] once a woman conceives a preborn human, the odds against her conceiving the same one again are greater than 10600 to one.[38] [39] (For comparison, there are roughly 1080 atoms in the known universe.[40])”

At 3 weeks after LMP: “The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.[41] [42]”

At 4 weeks after LMP: “The heart is beating and a circulatory system is in place.[43] The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.[44]”

At 7 weeks after LMP: “Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards.[45] The cerebrum has divided into hemispheres.[46]”

At 9 weeks after LMP: “More than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones.[48] [49] The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.[50]”

justfacts.com/abortion.asp

‘Sentience’ is no argument from morality. It is a utilitarian argument that was immensely enhanced after R v W. And, you have the nerve to tell me “my argument is distorted?”

God bless,
jd

 

[Sair]

Sair:

Call it what you will, but I think it carries as much or more weight than your theory. My argument is an argument from existential continuity. It’s purely naturalistic, and very utilitarian.

Yours, on the other hand, has no benefit, and appears to be motivated by a sort of selfishness.

You attempt to use ‘sentience’ as the guide of morality, but probably do not know the physiological implications of a preborn human. For example that, “Fertilization normally takes place within one day of intercourse but can occur up to six days later.[32] [33] At fertilization, the genetic composition of a preborn human is formed.[34] This genetic information determines gender, eye color, hair color, facial features, and influences characteristics such as intelligence and personality.[35]”

And, “Genetically speaking, with the exception of identical twins,[36] [37] once a woman conceives a preborn human, the odds against her conceiving the same one again are greater than 10600 to one.[38] [39] (For comparison, there are roughly 1080 atoms in the known universe.[40])”

At 3 weeks after LMP: “The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.[41] [42]”

At 4 weeks after LMP: “The heart is beating and a circulatory system is in place.[43] The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.[44]”

At 7 weeks after LMP: “Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards.[45] The cerebrum has divided into hemispheres.[46]”

At 9 weeks after LMP: “More than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones.[48] [49] The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.[50]”

justfacts.com/abortion.asp

‘Sentience’ is no argument from morality. It is a utilitarian argument that was immensely enhanced after R v W. And, you have the nerve to tell me “my argument is distorted?”

God bless,
jd

Yes, your argument was an attempt to distort the relationship between sentience - that is, the capacity to experience pleasure and pain - and rights, which derive from interests. What you were trying to do, quite apparently, was to say, “Well, hey, if you’re going to use something as stupid and arbitrary as mere sentience as a basis for moral consideration, why not strip it all the way back to practical utility?” As I’ve already submitted, a nonsentient ‘preborn human’, to use the political pro-lifer’s jargon, does not have any interests of its own. Any interests involved in the case are those of the parents. It matters not at all that the ‘preborn human’ possesses all the necessary building materials for a ‘post-born human’, any more than it matters what ethnic community the child would be born into - species is as arbitrary a distinction as race or gender when it comes to determining what kind of being is a candidate for moral consideration. Pro-lifers - that is, the political pro-life lobby, not necessarily all those who have a moral opposition to abortion - simply like to insist that humans are more important than other animals because they don’t want to have to condemn the eating of meat or the use of nonhuman animals in scientific research or the euthanasing of unwanted companion animals or any one of the manifold abuses visited by humans on our nonhuman cousins…

 

[Peter_Plato]

If pleasure is the highest good, then the ideal form of pleasure would be one that does not bring pain and misery in its wake. Addiction to physical pleasure fails this test (as Epicurus attested). The drug addict or alcoholic proves this point, in that it is a pleasure that leads down the road to hell (suffering). It is not freedom, but a form of slavery (being controlled by dependence).

It also becomes a vicious circle, because it works in reverse – one has relied on drugs, alcohol, or sex, in the first place, because one is already in pain mentally (through stress, anxiety, or depression) and is seeking an escape. One is trying to self-medicate.

I think you missed my point, here. I was attempting to demonstrate that if sentience is the gold standard for determining meaning and value, then that view is quite consistent with a view of the “good life” being drug induced euphoria. Heightened senses and sensory satisfaction could well be provided with the right mixture of future drug development that would artificially get rid of stress, anxiety, depression, etc. because these could all be treated chemically.

If sentience is the core value, then this kind of existence would be the ideal to be pursued. If it does not paint a satisfying portrait of the “good life,” then perhaps sentience isn’t the key factor for determining value.

Personally, I tend to more of an Aristotelian view of developing inherent human virtues or “powers” of the soul as a better model for grounding ethics. Sentience is a kind of minimum necessity but there is no reason to end there because (based on the points made above) that would be consistent with a drug induced, pain absent, sentient euphoria as a “happy” telos.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As I’ve already submitted, a nonsentient ‘preborn human’, to use the political pro-lifer’s jargon, does not have any interests of its own. Any interests involved in the case are those of the parents.

Nonsense! The preborn has implicit interests. Every interest that you have today, you also had potentially as an embryo or fetus in your mother’s womb. Of course you had interests, they were embedded in your very DNA. The fact that you couldn’t express them or were not conscious of them is irrelevent.

A sleeping human being continues to have current and future interests even though they are not conscious or aware of them at the moment of sleep.

To hinge interests on the person being aware of them is very problematic legally and morally. It would mean human beings only have rights to things they have a conscious awareness of. No awareness, no right. Extremely problematic.

An immigrant coming from another country would have no right to free speech, or private ownership of property if they came from a culture that prohibited these and were unaware of the laws in the new country. If no awareness means no interest, then a sure way to take away the rights of others is to find ways of taking away their awareness of their rights (drugs, lobotomy, knock them unconscious, etc.) Huge problems with this.

Future generations would have no interests in the state of the environment, so why bother with long term environmental policies?

Your children have interests (even though they have no current awareness of them) in their future education, in your future health, in the financial state of their parents, etc.

Just because a human being cannot voice their interests or have no awareness of them, does not mean interests do not exist. Even a five year old who does not have any conscious interest in their right to life, still has an implicit interest because of the fact they are alive. Same with a preborn human. They are alive and genetically complete. They have an interest in keeping themselves alive and complete. It is the responsibility of other human beings to protect those interests. Just as it is the responsibility of political systems to protect the rights and interests of all human beings in the jurisdiction even though many or most of those individuals may be completely unaware of what some of those interests are.

I have an interest in solar whips not occurring on the Sun because of an increase in dangerous radiation hitting the Earth. The fact that I am not aware of that fact does not negate my interest. The interest is obtained by the conditions that make for my good health, not by my awareness of an interest.

Same for the tiny human being in a womb. Its interests are activated by the necessary conditions required to keep it flourishing as a human life, not by the irrelevant condition of consciousness. Consciousness does not keep it alive. Oxygen, nutrients and warmth do. These are the interests of a fetal human. It has interests whether you agree or not. Consciousness is irrelevant.

 

[Sair]

Nonsense! The preborn has implicit interests. Every interest that you have today, you also had potentially as an embryo or fetus in your mother’s womb. Of course you had interests, they were embedded in your very DNA. The fact that you couldn’t express them or were not conscious of them is irrelevent.

A sleeping human being continues to have current and future interests even though they are not conscious or aware of them at the moments of sleep.

Future unborn generations have interests in the state of the environment.

Your children have interests (even though they have no current awareness of them) in their future education, in your future health, in the financial state of their parents, etc.

Just because a human being cannot voice their interests or have no awareness of them, does not mean interests do not exist. Even a five year old who does not have any conscious interest in their right to life, still has an implicit interest because of the fact they are alive. Same with a preborn human. They are alive and genetically complete. They have an interest in keeping themselves alive and complete. It is the responsibility of other human beings to protect those interests. Just as it is the responsibility of political systems to protect the rights and interests of all human beings in the jurisdiction even though many or most of those individuals may be completely unaware of what some of those interests are.

I have an interest in solar whips not occurring on the Sun because of an increase in dangerous radiation hitting the Earth. The fact that I am not aware of that fact does not negate my interest. The interest is obtained by the conditions that make for my good health, not by my awareness of an interest.

Same for the tiny human being in a womb. Its interests are activated by the necessary conditions required to keep it flourishing as a human life, not by the irrelevant condition of consciousness. Consciousness does not keep it alive. Oxygen, nutrients and warmth do. These are the interests of a fetal human. It has interests whether you agree or not. Consciousness is irrelevant.

The difference between a five-year-old and a foetus is that the former will notice if someone tries to kill them, and will instinctively fight against being killed. Again, as I’ve submitted before, it’s a different case for a sleeping person, who, although unaware of their immediate surroundings and interests, still has the capacity for experience in their own right, and has affected those around them - even if it’s just a matter of being a model for how other sleeping persons are treated. How do you think the majority of people would feel about going to sleep if they thought their lives would be at stake? The complexity of human social interests goes a long way beyond the fact of transitory unconsciousness. The human embryo, however human, has never had any interest in being or remaining alive. If it is aborted, it is none the wiser, and cannot experience regret for its lost life. Of course, I don’t expect a believer in souls to take this argument seriously, but until there’s a shred of evidence for the existence of souls, I’m sticking by my stated position.

That is the rational basis of moral consideration - sentience, the ability to experience pain and pleasure, the ability to have actual interests (not merely potential ones - after all, those potential interests may include genocide and the building of a master race, as they did for Hitler). If it isn’t clear why sentience forms a common ground for moral consideration, more than race, gender, religion or species membership, then it’s unclear what possible reason we could have for extending moral consideration beyond our own selves. After all, we can all set ourselves apart from others and claim that we’re ‘different’ and thus entitled to better than we grant others.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The difference between a five-year-old and a foetus is that the former will notice if someone tries to kill them, and will instinctively fight against being killed.

Apparently, you didn’t see the Bernard Nathanson video called The Silent Scream where the fetus is aware of the medical instrument about to grasp and cut it up and instinctively undertakes a number of avoidance maneuvers to get away.

Again, as I’ve submitted before, it’s a different case for a sleeping person, who, although unaware of their immediate surroundings and interests, still has the capacity for experience in their own right, and has affected those around them - even if it’s just a matter of being a model for how other sleeping persons are treated. How do you think the majority of people would feel about going to sleep if they thought their lives would be at stake?

How would you feel about your mother if she admitted to you that you survived a botched abortion attempt? Honestly. How do you think the majority of people would feel about having an abortion if they themselves would be the victim of that abortion?

The complexity of human social interests goes a long way beyond the fact of transitory unconsciousness. The human embryo, however human, has never had any interest in being or remaining alive. If it is aborted, it is none the wiser, and cannot experience regret for its lost life.

This applies to any murder or homocide victim. Once they are dead they are none the wiser and cannot experience regret for their loss of life either.
Killing someone in their sleep is even better because at that moment they have no interest, according to you, in being or remaining alive.

Pardon me, but your reasoning here is ridiculous. It depends on an arbitrary and ambiguous notion of interest. A person may be totally confused about his/her interests, but they still, morally and under the law, have them. For you to hinge interests on awareness, like I said, is playing on the ambiguous definition of interest, i.e., emotionally vested, rather than the legal one of having an interest or stake in the outcome. Of course a fetus has a stake in the outcome of the pregnancy even though it has no awareness or emotional investment in the outcome. Its very life is at stake so it ipso facto has a stake, a legal and moral interest.

Of course, I don’t expect a believer in souls to take this argument seriously, but until there’s a shred of evidence for the existence of souls, I’m sticking by my stated position.

This has nothing to do with souls. It has to do with the recognition that human lives have duration and involve growth and change. Your present needs and capacities do not render void future interests. An infant has an interest in having legs, even though it hasn’t yet learned to walk and has no awareness of what it’s legs are for. A three year old has an interest in the future cognitive ability of its brain to work out complex mathematical equations or to make logical connections, even though it does not have even a speck of awareness or “interest” (in your ambiguous sense) of what these are or maintaining them. Again, your position is simply untenable and to pawn objections off as "religious” or “soul” encumbered is just philosophical quackery.

That is the rational basis of moral consideration - sentience, the ability to experience pain and pleasure, the ability to have actual interests (not merely potential ones -

Interests are actual when they are required for sustaining the life, needs or wants of a person, and have reach far beyond the merely conscious “interests” of that person.

A two year old has an actual interest in the life and health of its parents even though the two year old has absolutely no “interest” in that interest. The interest obtains because the child’s life as a whole is benefitted by his/her parents remaining healthy. The two year old, as you say of the embryo, does not and has never had any interest in the health of its parents. Your use of “interest” is ambiguous, because clearly the two year old is benefitted by the health of its parents and has an actual interest (in the legal sense) in their health, even though the child does not pay any “interest” to the health condition of his/her parents. This is playing on ambiguity.

after all, those potential interests may include genocide and the building of a master race, as they did for Hitler). If it isn’t clear why sentience forms a common ground for moral consideration, more than race, gender, religion or species membership, then it’s unclear what possible reason we could have for extending moral consideration beyond our own selves.

Sentience forms less a ground for moral consideration than the legal idea of interest. I actually thought you were making some headway here, but you seem to be backpedaling. However, you sadly abuse both terms to make your point, whatever that is in this last paragraph. I honestly don’t get the relevance of this to your argument except to impugn some kind of guilt by association to Hitler. Desperation, perhaps?

After all, we can all set ourselves apart from others and claim that we’re ‘different’ and thus entitled to better than we grant others.

True. This applies to you if you support abortion. You are setting yourself apart from the unborn child and claiming to be “entitled to better” (life itself) than you grant others.

 

[Sair]

Apparently, you didn’t see the Bernard Nathanson video called The Silent Scream where the fetus is aware of the medical instrument about to grasp and cut it up and instinctively undertakes a number of avoidance maneuvers to get away.

A foetus lacks the capacity to feel pain or to have any conscious awareness until at least the third trimester. The Silent Scream is a political pro-life propaganda film.

How would you feel about your mother if she admitted to you that you survived a botched abortion attempt? Honestly. How do you think the majority of people would feel about having an abortion if they themselves would be the victim of that abortion?

Hmmm…botched abortions are far more likely to occur if the procedure is performed illegally without medical supervision. That’s what will happen if abortion is altogether outlawed - and does happen in countries where it is so. Most people recognise that if they had been aborted, they would not currently exist to have an opinion one way or the other.

This applies to any murder or homocide victim. Once they are dead they are none the wiser and cannot experience regret for their loss of life either.

Did you actually comprehend my argument? A presentient foetus has no awareness of being alive, nor any capacity to imagine a future for itself. Adult humans have both awareness and the capacity to imagine a future.

Killing someone in their sleep is even better because at that moment they have no interest, according to you, in being or remaining alive.

Suppose we take up this habit. How well will you sleep at night, knowing someone might kill you during your deep sleep stage? Again, you raise doubts as to your comprehension of my argument.

Pardon me, but your reasoning here is ridiculous. It depends on an arbitrary and ambiguous notion of interest. A person may be totally confused about his/her interests, but they still, morally and under the law, have them. For you to hinge interests on awareness, like I said, is playing on the ambiguous definition of interest, i.e., emotionally vested, rather than the legal one of having an interest or stake in the outcome. Of course a fetus has a stake in the outcome of the pregnancy even though it has no awareness or emotional investment in the outcome. Its very life is at stake so it ipso facto has a stake, a legal and moral interest.

How can any entity have interests without actually having them? The having of interests requires sentience and at least some level of emotional investment in one’s own needs. A foetus might have a stake in the outcome of its gestation in a theoretical sense, but that would mean every sperm and egg has much the same theoretical interest. Do you want to make menstruation and nocturnal emissions illegal too, since they deprive a potential zygote of its interests?

Sentience forms less a ground for moral consideration than the legal idea of interest. I actually thought you were making some headway here, but you seem to be backpedaling. However, you sadly abuse both terms to make your point, whatever that is in this last paragraph. I honestly don’t get the relevance of this to your argument except to impugn some kind of guilt by association to Hitler. Desperation, perhaps?

The legal idea of interest, at least as it is understood in modern times, is derived from sentience - that is, the actual capacity to have interests in the first place.

True. This applies to you if you support abortion. You are setting yourself apart from the unborn child and claiming to be “entitled to better” (life itself) than you grant others.

And here’s the thing - I am different to a foetus in utero, in the only way that matters morally. You are different to a foetus as well. My dog is different to a human foetus in the same way. Sentience is what grounds the ability to have interests. Were I in the place of an aborted foetus - as I’ve said several times now - I would be none the wiser, and in no position to object. I had no choice in being born or otherwise, nor was I entitled to any before birth. The choice was my parents’ to make. As it happens, I was raised by parents who wanted me and cared about my welfare. Had I been born to drug-addicted, impoverished, violent or indifferent parents, I might not be thanking them for having me!

 

[tonyrey]

This was in response to Sair’s “none the wiser” comment, regarding never having been born.

But there is a paradox at the heart of a Christian belief in the afterlife, vis-a-vis abortion, and it has to do with the question of the fate of the unborn.

Namely:

Scenario 1:

*the unborn are not permitted entrance into heaven, because they were not baptized

This would be very difficult for a believer to accept, within the context of a merciful and loving God.

This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Scenario 2:

*the unborn are in heaven, which they will enjoy for all eternity

In that case, the fact of being born adds only one thing to one’s existence, and that is potential damnation, given a lifetime of opportunity to sin (and the need to repent for that sin). Not having been born has just guaranteed that child’s salvation, for all eternity. If the unborn are in heaven, then – by being born – I have everything to lose, nothing to gain. Having been conceived, but never born, is a “safer” route to eternal salvation. And it is a legitimate route, because it was not my choice, but those of my parents.

A one-sided view of human existence. In addition to a lifetime of opportunity to sin
there is also a lifetime of opportunity to develop our capacity for love. You are also assuming that life in heaven is identical for everyone and that there are no degrees of sanctity.

I’m not drawing any ultimate conclusions from this thinking, merely pointing out what I see as a paradox when the difference between life and death is the difference between earth and heaven. With Scenario 2, one could still say, “it was God’s will that they be born, and you circumvented that will, even if they will spend an eternity in heaven. You have still committed the worst of all crimes, in taking a life, which you had no right to do.”

This would then be similar to the crime of Judas in betraying Christ – it was the worst of crimes, and yet it led to the crucifixion of Christ, which was necessary for our eternal salvation. There is a paradox, there, even with Judas’ betrayal of Christ. In theory, Judas’ betrayal of Christ could have been tantamount to Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

You are overlooking the all-important question of motives…

 

[tonyrey]

Had I been born to drug-addicted, impoverished, violent or indifferent parents, I might not be thanking them for having me!

Another feeble argument - this time based on “might”! Even if you had been born in appalling circumstances it does not follow that you would be doomed to a life of misery. At least you would have some choice in the matter. And it certainly doesn’t justify killing you in cold blood for the sake of convenience…

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, your argument was an attempt to distort the relationship between sentience - that is, the capacity to experience pleasure and pain - and rights, which derive from interests.

Sair:

No, you’re wrong. I know the difference between the two, and was not trying to distort the relationship between them. That’s absurd - but, it’s what you are, in fact, trying to do. What I was REALLY trying to do was to show that both are nothing more than personal caprice, except that mine is not sudden. Yours, OTOH, is, and yours is not the result of a well formed, and well informed, conscience. Really, the ability to sense “pain or pleasure!” That’s your criterion? I’m not surprised since I don’t think you have anything objective as grounding for a morality, at least not from a reading of lots of your posts.

What you were trying to do, quite apparently, was to say, “Well, hey, if you’re going to use something as stupid and arbitrary as mere sentience as a basis for moral consideration, why not strip it all the way back to practical utility?”

I can’t believe that you even think this way! Like your position is nuanced and inclusive, and mine isn’t! That is unbelievable to me, sorry. What you are saying is that for you, the ultimate impetus for life is “to sense pain and/or pleasure!” Really? And, I assume that entails: “giving and receiving.” That’s it. How does your continuity of desire to participate in CAF square with that? For the pain side?

As I’ve already submitted, a nonsentient ‘preborn human’, to use the political pro-lifer’s jargon, does not have any interests of its own.

Neither does a three-year old.

Any interests involved in the case are those of the parents. It matters not at all that the ‘preborn human’ possesses all the necessary building materials for a ‘post-born human’, any more than it matters what ethnic community the child would be born into - species is as arbitrary a distinction as race or gender when it comes to determining what kind of being is a candidate for moral consideration.

That’s absurd. You don’t have that same dispassion for other “preborns.”

Pro-lifers - that is, the political pro-life lobby, not necessarily all those who have a moral opposition to abortion - simply like to insist that humans are more important than other animals because they don’t want to have to condemn the eating of meat or the use of nonhuman animals in scientific research or the euthanasing of unwanted companion animals or any one of the manifold abuses visited by humans on our nonhuman cousins…

Another absurdity, and, equally, an unjustified, and unjustifyable, assertion. It;s OK, I suppose, that for you to eat plant life, but not meat? Ron Hubbard spent many years proving sentience in individual plant cells. All you can do is deny his conclusions, or put Hubbard down. But, you don’t know for sure.

Although I am largely a vegetarian (not by choice), the vast majority of us live our lives within the parameters of, If it’s natural, I’m in for it.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The difference between a five-year-old and a foetus is that the former will notice if someone tries to kill them, and will instinctively fight against being killed.

Sair:

Even though what you say is empirically not true, the fact that you include the balance of your thought is very telling! “…if someone tries to kill them, and will instinctively fight against being killed.” Well, I rest my case! Instinct = sentience! (If you want to retrieve that sentiment, go ahead, we’ll chalk it up as your “mulligan.” )

Again, as I’ve submitted before, it’s a different case for a sleeping person, who, although unaware of their immediate surroundings and interests, still has the capacity for experience in their own right, and has affected those around them

AND, SO HAS THE PREBORN BABY! The only difference is: it might take the baby eight months to wake up as opposed to eight hours! So, you see, it does come down to pure Time.

How do you think the majority of -]people/-] preborn babies would feel about -]going to sleep/-] being in a womb if they thought their lives would be at stake?

Your above sentence is amended to remove some dissonance.

The complexity of human social interests goes a long way beyond the fact of transitory unconsciousness. The human embryo, however human, has never had any interest in being or remaining alive.

How strange that at about 12 weeks after LMP, the aborted preborn baby will often attempt to suckle. (Even if you want to call this “instinct,” you’ve already agreed that “instinct = sentience.”)

If it is aborted, it is none the wiser, and cannot experience regret for its lost life.

If you are dispatched in your sleep, you are none the wiser and you will suffer no regret for your lost life!

Of course, I don’t expect a believer in souls to take this argument seriously, but until there’s a shred of evidence for the existence of souls, I’m sticking by my stated position.

I know we are ensouled; that you don’t is not my problem to wrestle with.

That is the rational basis of moral consideration - sentience, the ability to experience pain and pleasure, the ability to have actual interests

How many more codicils will you find it necessary to add?

(not merely potential ones - after all, those potential interests may include genocide and the building of a master race, as they did for Hitler).

The exact same thing can be said of any person on our side of his/her mother’s belly skin!

If it isn’t clear why sentience forms a common ground for moral consideration,

It forms no ground. It’s personal preference. (For me, it is insignificant, unless I am being tortured.)

more than race, gender, religion or species membership, then it’s unclear what possible reason we could have for extending moral consideration beyond our own selves.

That is the most muddied induction-from-ridiculous-dialectic that I have ever read!

After all, we can all set ourselves apart from others and claim that we’re ‘different’ and thus entitled to better than we grant others.

What’s this? An sample meaningless afterthought?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

A foetus lacks the capacity to feel pain or to have any conscious awareness until at least the third trimester. The Silent Scream is a political pro-life propaganda film.

Sair:

Yep: the writhing of the preborn baby must be an old-timey attempt to simulate today’s computer graphics? Besides, you don’t know what you’re talking about: At 9 weeks after LMP: "Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backward.[45] The cerebrum has divided into hemispheres.[46 (*Ibid.)

Hmmm…botched abortions are far more likely to occur if the procedure is performed illegally without medical supervision.

I won’t say it . . . because it might be taken as callous.

Most people recognise that if they had been aborted, they would not currently exist to have an opinion one way or the other.

My youngest - not a religious person, mind you - has been more than moderately aberrated ever since finding out that her mom wanted to abort her.

Did you actually comprehend my argument? A presentient foetus has no awareness of being alive, nor any capacity to imagine a future for itself. Adult humans have both awareness and the capacity to imagine a future.

Do you realize that neither does a sleeping adult - until they have to urinate.

Suppose we take up this habit. How well will you sleep at night, knowing someone might kill you during your deep sleep stage? Again, you raise doubts as to your comprehension of my argument.

Trust us: your arguments are not monuments to in-depth thought!

How can any entity have interests without actually having them?

Nothing less than the same can be said equally about the sleeping adult.

The having of interests requires sentience and at least some level of emotional investment in one’s own needs.

(See! I knew, sooner or later, a new codicil would make an appearance.)

A foetus might have a stake in the outcome of its gestation in a theoretical sense, but that would mean every sperm and egg has much the same theoretical interest.

Why? Until fusion takes place, a sperm or an egg are just cells-from-a human-being. It’s grossly illogical to extend the same inherent characteristics to them!

The legal idea of interest, at least as it is understood in modern times, is derived from sentience - that is, the actual capacity to have interests in the first place.

Which presupposes “life.”

And here’s the thing - I am different to a foetus in utero, in the only way that matters morally. You are different to a foetus as well.

Well, we happen to be on this side of the mother’s belly skin.

My dog is different to a human foetus in the same way.

Not in the least! This is where it gets tough but, see if you can grasp this: THE DOG FETUS WILL PASS INTO THE CONDITION OF BABY DOG (AKA "PUPPY), AND NOTHING ELSE. THE HUMAN FETUS WILL PASS INTO THE CONDITION OF HUMAN BABY, AND NOTHING ELSE. THERE IS NO BREAK IN THE TRAJECTORY, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

Sentience is what grounds the ability to have interests.

LIFE is what grounds the ability to have sentience.

Were I in the place of an aborted foetus - as I’ve said several times now - I would be none the wiser, and in no position to object. I had no choice in being born or otherwise, nor was I entitled to any before birth. The choice was my parents’ to make. As it happens, I was raised by parents who wanted me and cared about my welfare. Had I been born to drug-addicted, impoverished, violent or indifferent parents, I might not be thanking them for having me!

And this must be an example of “sheer irrelevance?”

God bless,
jd

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

It amazes me even now in this age how willing some people are to dehumanize fetuses by creating arbitrary lines or distinctions in their developement in order to justify their subjugation and/or death.

When I read the speeches men like John C. Calhoun and other southern democratic, pro-slavery people like him, and how they described their slaves, I was not shocked at all of how similar their rhetoric was to the modern pro-abortion movement.

That should tell you all you need to know of the evil of abortion.

 

[Portofino]

I think you missed my point, here. I was attempting to demonstrate that if sentience is the gold standard for determining meaning and value, then that view is quite consistent with a view of the “good life” being drug induced euphoria. Heightened senses and sensory satisfaction could well be provided with the right mixture of future drug development that would artificially get rid of stress, anxiety, depression, etc. because these could all be treated chemically.

It is true that the interests of life and sentience are the foundation of basic legal protections – roughly speaking, the right not to be physically harmed or killed by one’s neighbor.

To some extent, our laws do get somewhat more sophisticated than that, and rise to the level of freedom from mental or emotional harm-- for example, one can include, as part of a lawsuit, compensation for “mental anguish”; or a spouse can allege “emotional cruelty” as part of the grounds for divorce. Rape is also an emotionally traumatic event, as is unjust imprisonment.

Still, legal protections are pretty rudimentary. That’s probably why Jefferson was careful to use the phrase, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” As to what true happiness consists in, it is a more personal matter.

Within the bounds of legality, we are more or less on our own, as to how we decide to live our lives. So, while sentience (and our protection as sentient beings) is largely the basis of our laws – the reason we have speed limits, for example – such legal protections do not ultimately tell us what the “good life” entails. Most people, in actuality, do have fairly uniform ideas as to what the “good life” entails – friends and companionship, including – possibly – marriage and children (and grandchildren); fulfilling work; enjoyment and leisure time; the maintenance of good health. In addition to purely sensual pleasures (such as enjoying a glass of water), there are also emotional pleasures (time with friends and family), as well intellectual pleasures (learning and thinking). We are also free to lead lives of voluntary service and self-sacrifice (often, through our jobs, service of others is compulsory), though – even there – there are those who claim that, in the long term, such a life is more fulfilling or satisfying (“fulfillment” and “satisfaction” being refined words for pleasure). As for service of neighbor, it largely includes fulfilling their basic needs as sentient beings – feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick. In some ways, our physical needs as creatures are the most fundamental of all.

If there were a miracle drug, though, I would hope that its use wouldn’t be compulsory. And if it had no side effects – or addictive properties – or did not impair judgment in a way that was a hazard to other people – and did not lead to sheer boredom – or atrophy of the body and mind – or lack of emotional or mental fulfillment, due to no challenges or difficulties, or no sense of personal accomplishment or achievement, it would be a miracle drug, indeed

 

[Peter_Plato]

Still, legal protections are pretty rudimentary. That’s probably why Jefferson was careful to use the phrase, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” As to what true happiness consists in, it is a more personal matter.

Yes, but the founding fathers were careful to balance the “pursuit of happiness” against the inalienable right to life and liberty. So pursuit of happiness was not, at least prior to the Casey Decision, ever a justification for taking another life or to deprive another human being of their freedom.