Pro life thought experiment

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Actually, I believe you’re thinking about the word “spirit”, not “soul”.

That is another SSDD moment. Though it is true that terms are used in different contexts with different meanings, for example “spirit is a strong alcoholic beverage” and “soul is a musical style”. But I am not aware of any difference in the context we were talking about.

No, you’re not. And yet, you continue to expound as if you were aware.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

I’m declining it because I don’t see the relevance.

Hey, bud! This is a discussion forum. What kind of “relevance” are you looking for on an anonymous discussion forum?

Relevance to the question being asked. If you had asked about “personhood”, then I’d see the philosophical tack. You didn’t. You asked about what defines a “human being”. That’s a biological question. You just didn’t like the answer.

The theological answer is insufficient, because it cannot answer lots of follow-up questions.

Huh? Are you serious? OK… I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt:

What about test-tube babies?

Human beings.

Those who are either partially, or (eventually) fully created in an artificial environment.

Human beings.

What about cyborgs?

Don’t exist.

How many and which parts can be replaced by artificial prostheses, and still have a “human” at the end?

If you start with a human, you have a human, no matter how many arms or legs you replace.

What about hybrid beings (chimeras), composed of some human and animal genes?

Don’t exist – except in Hollywood.

What about death? When does death occur?

Irrelevant to the question “what is a human being?”.

So… the Church does teach about ensoulment

The catechism is not sufficient, because it is a changing document. Read here:

Worst. Retort. EVAR.

Seriously? If the catechism were never updated, you’d dismiss it for being ancient. Since it reflects a living, growing Church, you dismiss it for being “changing”. Try again.

Do Embryos Have Souls?

From the article you cite: “it would be more immoral to destroy an embryo that had not yet received an immortal soul than to destroy an ensouled embryo.”

In other words, the article you cite as an authority makes the claim that it doesn’t matter when an embryo receives a soul, since the embryo – at the very least – represents human life with the potential for ensoulment, and destruction of that potentially ensouled human would be the highest form of evil. In other words, the article demonstrates the irrelevance of your question. Thanks for helping tear down your own argument.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gorgias:

I’m declining it because I don’t see the relevance.

Hey, bud! This is a discussion forum. What kind of “relevance” are you looking for on an anonymous discussion forum?

Regardless of the type of forum, if you have a point to make about the OP thought experiment, then make it. Trying to lead an opponent into committing to a statement that was unnecessary to make just so that you can try to poke holes in it is what we call a deflection. Gorgias has every right to ask for the relevance of your question as it relates to the OP issue.

If we’re asking a biological question (“what makes a human being?”), then we use biology to answer the question.

Biology alone cannot supply the answer, just like it cannot answer its own fundamental subject: “what is life”? The question is not just biological, also political and even theological. The theological answer is insufficient, because it cannot answer lots of follow-up questions. What about test-tube babies? Those who are either partially, or (eventually) fully created in an artificial environment. What about cyborgs? How many and which parts can be replaced by artificial prostheses, and still have a “human” at the end? What about hybrid beings (chimeras), composed of some human and animal genes?

The OP thought experiment was not about any of those things. If you are looking for the answer to life, the universe, and everything, the answer is 42. But if you are looking for the answer the OP thought experiment, stick to that.

 

[Scowler]

What about cyborgs?

Don’t exist.

Yes they do. As soon as you received a filling in your tooth, you are a cyborg. If you got a pacemaker, you became a cyborg. Maybe you don’t understand what the word “cyborg” means. It means partially living tissue, and partially inanimate matter. I am glad I could widen your horizon.

If you start with a human, you have a human, no matter how many arms or legs you replace.

Arms and legs, yes. Even heart, lung, kidney, spleen, bones, muscles… etc. What about the “brain”? We started with a human being, and EVERY piece is replaced by a prosthesis. Is the result still a human, or a robot? Don’t bother with your usual attempt to evade: “They don’t exist”.

If the catechism were never updated, you’d dismiss it for being ancient. Since it reflects a living, growing Church, you dismiss it for being “changing”.

The declaration of: “when the ensoulment occurred” was changing. And it cannot be based upon some new scientific discovery, since the “soul” is undetectable by science.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

What about cyborgs?

Don’t exist.

Yes they do.

Not as unique species, which is the point you’re trying to make. When I get a filling in my tooth, I’m a human with a filling, not a non-human.

As soon as you received a filling in your tooth, you are a cyborg.

Some define it that way, but not all. Regardless, it’s irrelevant: you’re still human, even if you’re the “six million dollar man”.

What about the “brain”?

Totally different scenario, then.

We started with a human being, and EVERY piece is replaced by a prosthesis.

If everything is replaced, then it’s non-human.

 

[Scowler]

Some define it that way, but not all.

A cyborg is a “hybrid”, with some human TISSUE, and some artificial implants - the ratio is unspecified. That is THE definition, which cannot be disputed. (Well, some “quacks” may dispute it, but who cares about the “quacks”?)

Totally different scenario, then.

Is it? We start with a fully human being. We only replace the brain with an identically operational prosthesis and leave the rest alone. Is the resulting hybrid still a human?

If everything is replaced, then it’s non-human.

So we start with a human being, replace everything except one organ with a prosthesis, and the result is still a human… according to your analysis. Even if that organ is (for example!) just the skin (which, by the way is our heaviest organ) . Of course, I have no quarrel with this process, but I never thought that YOU will agree with it. Looks like there is still hope.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So we start with a human being, replace everything except one organ with a prosthesis, and the result is still a human… according to your analysis. Even if that organ is (for example!) just the skin (which, by the way is our heaviest organ) . Of course, I have no quarrel with this process, but I never thought that YOU will agree with it. Looks like there is still hope.

At this point that scenario is so hypothetical that it is hard to see how it can be used in a practical argument. It may turn out to be as impossible as time travel. And we all know what sort of logical difficulties we can get into when we start hypothesizing about time travel.

 

[Scowler]

At this point that scenario is so hypothetical that it is hard to see how it can be used in a practical argument. It may turn out to be as impossible as time travel. And we all know what sort of logical difficulties we can get into when we start hypothesizing about time travel.

Actually time travel is theoretically impossible, because it can lead to a logical contradiction. This thought experiment is not like that. There is nothing logically impossible about it.

 

[abucs]

I would save the 5 year old first and then look to save the embryo’s.

If the choice was between my mother and 1000 5 year olds then I would choose my mother first and then try to save the 5 year olds. If it was either one or the other then I would choose my mother.

I think it is important to understand here that I am saving people I am not killing anyone. Choosing to save 1 life before the other is not tantamount to killing anyone. What we are talking about is the normal reaction of saving those closest to you first, not denying the humanity of the ones you don’t choose to save first.

I would expect that the OP would choose to save one of his loved family members before saving me but would agree that his actions would in no way suggest he thinks that I am not human or unworthy to be saved.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

At this point that scenario is so hypothetical that it is hard to see how it can be used in a practical argument. It may turn out to be as impossible as time travel. And we all know what sort of logical difficulties we can get into when we start hypothesizing about time travel.

Actually time travel is theoretically impossible, because it can lead to a logical contradiction. This thought experiment is not like that. There is nothing logically impossible about it.

Until you show such a transition to every body part replaced is practically possible, there is no need to ensure our philosophy covers such a scenario. We will cross that bridge when (and if) we come to it.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Some define it that way, but not all.

A cyborg is a “hybrid”, with some human TISSUE, and some artificial implants - the ratio is unspecified. That is THE definition, which cannot be disputed. (Well, some “quacks” may dispute it, but who cares about the “quacks”?)

Well, ya know… there are those who subscribe to the “if it quacks like a duck” approach to ‘logical’ thinking…

In any case, the issue is the extent and function of the “machinery” in question. Some would call contact lenses or hearing aids – or even, tooth fillings () – sufficient to proclaim “cyborg!”, while others would not.

In any case, the result would continue to be human.

Totally different scenario, then.

Is it? We start with a fully human being. We only replace the brain with an identically operational prosthesis and leave the rest alone. Is the resulting hybrid still a human?

So we start with a human being, replace everything except one organ with a prosthesis, and the result is still a human

We’ve gotten pretty far afield with this tangent, which now has nothing to do with the question at hand. So, let’s see if we can’t steer back to the topic.

You asked about the definition of a “human being”. Why does that require a philosophical argument?

 

[Scowler]

Until you show such a transition to every body part replaced is practically possible, there is no need to ensure our philosophy covers such a scenario. We will cross that bridge when (and if) we come to it.

Usually this is one of the last attempts to wiggle out. Practical possibility is not the issue in any thought experiment. Logical possibility is the issue. And to wait until we get to that bridge can be too late. Better to be prepared.

As for practicality, even today we can have a hybrid brain. Part of the brain can be substituted with a microchip, which performs either identically of even better than the original. So we are right before that “bridge”, and our big toe is already on it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Until you show such a transition to every body part replaced is practically possible, there is no need to ensure our philosophy covers such a scenario. We will cross that bridge when (and if) we come to it.

Usually this is one of the last attempts to wiggle out. Practical possibility is not the issue in any thought experiment. Logical possibility is the issue. And to wait until we get to that bridge can be too late. Better to be prepared.

As for practicality, even today we can have a hybrid brain. Part of the brain can be substituted with a microchip, which performs either identically of even better than the original. So we are right before that “bridge”, and our big toe is already on it.

The purpose of a thought experiment is to illuminate a principle that has practical applications. Your scenario is still a giant hypothetical and of little application to day-to-day applications of moral decision making.

 

[Scowler]

Well, ya know… there are those who subscribe to the “if it quacks like a duck” approach to ‘logical’ thinking…

Actually we all do, and that is not quackery. Only the believers try to carve out an exception for God - and that IS quackery.

In any case, the issue is the extent and function of the “machinery” in question. Some would call contact lenses or hearing aids – or even, tooth fillings () – sufficient to proclaim “cyborg!”, while others would not.

It is a very primitive kind of cyborg, but it fits the definition. I guess you prefer to talk about the “Terminator” kind, an fully functional cybernetic organism with a this veneer of human tissue to cover the inorganic part. So if it is the final product of gradual process, starting with a bona-fide human being, you declare it a “human being”. I would agree to this, but I suspect that you will shy away from this step. If not, hurrah!

We’ve gotten pretty far afield with this tangent, which now has nothing to do with the question at hand. So, let’s see if we can’t steer back to the topic.

It has everything to do with the topic. Hybrid organisms, mutant organisms, mixed organisms all need to be considered. In other words, how far can we deviate from the so-called human “DNA” - which - by the way - does not even exist. There are some loosely defined boundaries, and we call something “human” if its DNA is within those boundaries. That is not a solid ground to build upon.

To declare “human == DNA” would be not just imprecise, because it would make a tumor also a “human”, especially since it is growing. Now your objection would be that the tumor cannot grow into “real” human. That objection is valid, but you just shot yourself in the foot, since the same applies to the zygote, it CAN grow into “real” human being. A human tissue is only a human being IF it can - eventually, under the right conditions - BECOME a real human. So the biological approach is useless. That is why we need to look beyond the biology. It is definitely a philosophical question.

 

[Scowler]

The purpose of a thought experiment is to illuminate a principle that has practical applications. Your scenario is still a giant hypothetical and of little application to day-to-day applications of moral decision making.

Not at all. It is useful to explore the boundaries of possibilities, to allow us to be prepared for the “what if” scenarios. Of course you can always withdraw from the deliberation, if you so choose. But you only wish to piss on our parade.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Well, ya know… there are those who subscribe to the “if it quacks like a duck” approach to ‘logical’ thinking…

Actually we all do, and that is not quackery. Only the believers try to carve out an exception for God - and that IS quackery.

If God is not human, and we’re talking about the context of the morality of human action, then things which do not apply to God are not exceptions for God. (In other words, it’s not an ‘exception’ to human bodily function that I do not experience menses; rather, I am not a woman, so it does not apply to me.) Important distinction, that…

To declare “human == DNA” would be not just imprecise, because it would make a tumor also a “human”, especially since it is growing.

Puh-leeze. Your hyperbole is really getting out of hand, now.

Now your objection would be that the tumor cannot grow into “real” human. That objection is valid, but you just shot yourself in the foot, since the same applies to the zygote, it CAN grow into “real” human being.

You realize that you just equated “cannot grow into a human” with “can grow into a human”, right?

Two problems: first, you’re saying “black=white”, “apples=oranges”, “is=not”. Just. Not. Logical.

Second, you’re cunningly slipping in a presumption with which we do not agree: a zygote cannot “become” a human being… because it already is a human being. (A tumor, on the other hand, is neither a human being nor can become one.)

But hey, in the world of hyperbole… nice try.

A human tissue is only a human being IF it can - eventually, under the right conditions - BECOME a real human.

Again, a zygote is not “tissue”, it is an organism. (Which is already a human being. Which doesn’t later ‘become’ human.)

So the biological approach is useless.

Only if your assertions, above, hold up. They don’t.

Perhaps what you mean is that “biology is useless to me, to prove my point.” That might be true.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The purpose of a thought experiment is to illuminate a principle that has practical applications. Your scenario is still a giant hypothetical and of little application to day-to-day applications of moral decision making.

Not at all. It is useful to explore the boundaries of possibilities, to allow us to be prepared for the “what if” scenarios. Of course you can always withdraw from the deliberation, if you so choose. But you only wish to piss on our parade.

Don’t you mean your parade? This thread is about exploring concept of the dignity of the pre-born. It is not about the dignity of HAL9000. I think you are trying to lead the parade down a different street.

 

[Scowler]

If God is not human, and we’re talking about the context of the morality of human action, then things which do not apply to God are not exceptions for God.

According to Catholicism, there is an absolute morality. The word “absolute” means applicable in every situation, for any agent. Now you “redefine” absolute into “everything except God”. So your “absolute” equals “relative”. As they say, nice try. Oh and by the way God allegedly made humans in his “image”. If we are morally culpable for some actions, so is God. Which question I explored in the thread “Why God does not take free will away from Bad people”. You could pick it up there.

Puh-leeze. Your hyperbole is really getting out of hand, now.

It does not. IF you equate human with DNA, it is right on the money. If you do not equate “human” with DNA, then what is your definition? Born to some human parents? What about the mutants? What about the hybrids? What about cyborgs? What about parthenogenesis? We are back exactly where you did not want to go.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

If God is not human, and we’re talking about the context of the morality of human action, then things which do not apply to God are not exceptions for God.

According to Catholicism, there is an absolute morality. The word “absolute” means applicable in every situation, for any agent. Now you “redefine” absolute into “everything except God”. So your “absolute” equals “relative”.

You’re pretty good at setting up straw men, aren’t you?

No – the Church explicitly talks about the morality of human acts. Read the Catechism, beginning at #1749. It explicitly notes that it’s talking about human acts. You can make any claim you want… but we’ll know when you’re just blowing smoke…

Oh and by the way God allegedly made humans in his “image”.

Again, ‘redefinition of terms’ is your forte… but it’s pretty ineffective. That’s not what’s meant by the “imago Dei.” I would recommend you read up on what it means before you make assertions about it.

 

[Scowler]

That’s not what’s meant by the “imago Dei.”

Really? It certainly cannot refer to our power, or knowledge. Or our ability to create things by snapping our fingers. The only thing that can be common is that we “ate” from the tree of the “knowledge of good and evil” and as such we became like God. Therefore humans and God are both moral agents. Of course you are free to create new definitions as we go along. And if you wish to declare that God is not a “moral” agent… then I might even agree. Definitely not “moral”.

Now you may assert that the whole Genesis is just a hyperbole, without any actual foundation, that is another usual cop-out.

But that would belong to a different thread. You still did not tell me how you define a “human” being. The last one was “human == DNA” and that is already refuted. Anything new? Reminding you about the open questions:

Hybrid organisms, mutant organisms, mixed organisms all need to be considered. In other words, how far can we deviate from the so-called human “DNA” - which - by the way - does not even exist.