Refuting the Dogmatic Morality of Secularism - How do we do it?

[Serious]

You are in one sense correct. A zygote, a blastocyst or an old age pensioner is not a child. However, they are all human.

They all are made of material which is composed of human DNA. Do you argue that humans are defined by their DNA? If you do, then the chichen is defined by their DNA, too, and then eating and omlette equals eating fried chicken. If that is your definition, then a cancerous tumor is also a “human”.

Indeed, a zygote, a blastocyst or a fetus will grow into a full human, under proper circumstances. But the term “will grow” cannot be confused with “already is”. A medical student will become a doctor, if and when he receives his diploma. One second before this happens, his knowledge is already sufficient to perform medical practices, yet he does not qualify as a doctor. I know this is an artificial line in the sand, but that is how things are.

Precisely. Secular morality views as permissible any desire or act of the will, provided it doesn’t interfere with the desire or the will of another. As a result, any human being that should find himself in a situation where he is deprived of desire or will becomes fair game to those who wish to further deprive him of his life.

That simply does NOT follow. In such cases we must make a rational decision about what would the person’s (zygotes are not persons) decisions be. If they happened to issue a living will, then the guideline is clear. Now, I also understand that your and my view on life is different. In my view I am the sole and final arbiter of my life, who has sole dominion over it. Yours is that your life is simply a loan from god, and you have responsibility of taking care of it, but no “rights” to make decisions about it. The important difference is that I respect your view, and I am willing to support your decisions based upon your view, but you are not willing to reciprocate it. You cannot, since you think that god also has dominion over my life.

I had no intention of changing the subject. It does amply demonstrate my point that secular morality has elevated the individual’s will to the status of absolute value, and that inevitably leads an individual who espouses that particular set of secular values to accept acts of depravity as being merely “amoral,” as you yourself show.

Sure. Why is that a problem? The principle of: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins” clearly expresses my respect for you. I value your freedom just like I value my own. Tell me, why do you think that this basic concept is problematic?

Unlike you, I do not believe that the maximum fulfilment of wills is necessarily good…

Many people agree with you. Many people do not value “freedom” at all. Many people value safety and security over freedom, which inevitably come with accepting responsibility, and most people don’t want responsibility.

…and I believe that the depravity such a mindset permits will have grave consequences for society and humanity in the long run and, paradoxically, not lead to something people, including secularists, actually want. Of course, I would be delighted if I could show you that because I believe that all people, including secularists and those of other faiths, should strive to live in a better world than one where libertine freedom is the only value.

A perfect example of misunderstanding. The “only value”? Who says it is the “only” value? Personally, I do go along the line Patrick Henry: “Give me liberty or give me death”. But I understand that other people have a different value system. What is good for the gander, is not necessarily good for the goose. A very serious problem I see with the religious people that they hold the principle of “one size fits all”.

Your mindset, however, views libertinism as a positive good, and so I guess the question I wanted to ask my fellow Christians is how we could reason with intelligent secularists like yourself on your terms, without reference to God, and still show them that while their defence of freedom is certainly a good thing, the belief in absolute freedom in all spheres, including morality, isn’t.

I am still “all ears”. I do not advocate that absolute freedom in every aspect of life is desirable. (For example I do not think that everyone should have free access to weapons of mass destruction). Don’t you realize that advocating perfect freedom as long as it does not hurt others is NOT the same as advocating perfect freedom for everyone in all aspects? I hope you see the huge difference. A mutually useful dialog is impossible with such misunderstandings.

 

[kch86]

They all are made of material which is composed of human DNA. Do you argue that humans are defined by their DNA?

As living beings with human DNA… yes, I guess, something to that effect.

If you do, then the chichen is defined by their DNA, too, and then eating and omlette equals eating fried chicken.

A bird egg contains the nutrients necessary for a chicken embryo to grow into a chick. The egg yolk and egg white do not contain the mini-chicken’s DNA but merely form the substrate in which it will grow. So if the egg from which the omelette was made was fertilised and contained a chicken embryo, then the omelette obviously, in addition to the egg white and egg yolk, contains within it a tiny little fried chicken.

If that is your definition, then a cancerous tumor is also a “human”.

A cancerous tumour is human tissue whose DNA has been seriously damaged, leading to uncontrolled cell division. It is as much a human as any other piece of human tissue. The muscle in my leg is not a human. My heart is not a human. And 50 years from now, the cancer in my lungs will not be a human. My heart and leg muscle are and will always remain human tissue. And the cancer will be cancerous human tissue.

Indeed, a zygote, a blastocyst or a fetus will grow into a full human, under proper circumstances.

This paper advocating euthanasia on demand of newborns (“after-birth abortion”) states: Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings

That simply does NOT follow.

Read the paper. What I said is a summary of the reasoning used.

A perfect example of misunderstanding. The “only value”? Who says it is the “only” value? Personally, I do go along the line Patrick Henry: “Give me liberty or give me death”. But I understand that other people have a different value system. What is good for the gander, is not necessarily good for the goose. A very serious problem I see with the religious people that they hold the principle of “one size fits all”.

You’re right, I shouldn’t have said “only” value.

I am still “all ears”. I do not advocate that absolute freedom in every aspect of life is desirable. (For example I do not think that everyone should have free access to weapons of mass destruction). Don’t you realize that advocating perfect freedom as long as it does not hurt others is NOT the same as advocating perfect freedom for everyone in all aspects? I hope you see the huge difference. A mutually useful dialog is impossible with such misunderstandings.

I understand what you mean about the difference between advocating freedom when it doesn’t hurt others and advocating unrestricted freedom. My contention is that “perfect freedom as long as it doesn’t hurt others,” which can not only be used to justify “after-birth abortion,” will also have long-term undesirable consequences and I would advocate a more moderate position.

 

[Serious]

As living beings with human DNA… yes, I guess, something to that effect.

Don’t you see the problem here? There is no such thing as “human DNA”. There is very loosely defined range of DNA we consider as “human”. No living human has ever had “perfect recollection” and “perfect pitch” and “perfect mathematical and chess playing abilities” along with “perfect health” and “perfect linguistic skills”… and… and… such a “being” would be super human. Also this being could be resistant to all diseases, would not be susceptible to bodily decay… could live for thousands of years… so on what grounds would you consider it “human”? Where does the “humans” end, and "super-human mutants begin?

A bird egg contains the nutrients necessary for a chicken embryo to grow into a chicken. The egg yolk and egg white do not contain the mini-chicken’s DNA but merely form the substrate in which it will grow. So if the egg from which the omelette was made was fertilised and contained a chicken embryo, then the omelette obviously in addition to the egg-white and egg yolk, contains within it a tiny little fried chicken.

Good trick, but it will not fly (literally ). Just because there is a chicken zygote in the omlette, no sane person would consider it a “fried chicken”. Is it “white meat”? Or “dark meat”?

A cancerous tumour is human tissue whose DNA has been seriously damaged, leading to uncontrolled cell division. It is as much a human as any other piece of human tissue. The muscle in my leg is not a human. My heart is not a human. And 50 years from now, the cancer in my lungs will not be a human. My heart and leg muscle are and will always remain human tissue. And the cancer will be cancerous human tissue.

Indeed. But they are not human “beings”. Suppose that there will be a technology in the future where one human cell can be used to grow into a human being… (cloning, anyone?). Will that technology “elevate” the status of one human cell into a “human being” just because that human cell could be used to grow into a human being?

This paper advocating euthanasia on demand of newborns (“after-birth abortion”) states: Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings

Read the paper. What I said is a summary of the reasoning used.

I happen to disagree with the paper.

You’re right, I shouldn’t have said “only” value.

Thank you very much.

I understand what you mean about the difference between advocating freedom when it doesn’t hurt others and advocating unrestricted freedom. My contention is that “perfect freedom as long as it doesn’t hurt others” will have long-term undesirable consequences and I would advocate a more moderate position.

I see. You say it “will” have long term undesirable consequences, and not it “might” have long term undesirable consequences. The word “will” have is much more “definitive” than “might” have. If something just “might” have some indesirable consequences it is just a possibility. But if some things “will” have (no if’s and’s and but’s) some consequences that is a whole different ballgame. I still see nothing wrong with being permissive toward those endeavors which do not hurt others.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Serious’s error is in denying the reality of substance. A zygote or fetus is substantially a human being not because he or she has everything necessary for human existence, but because the children of one species are the same species by nature, not because of their parts. Sure the fetus needs nutrition from another person (the mother) but the same is true of an infant, or for that matter, An adult who is disabled or in prison has the same dependency. Now the substance of the fetus as human doesn’t change if the fetus has defective DNA, a missing limb, etc.

If human beings were reducible to their parts then you would be able to avoid arrest by taking away the badge of a police officer before he cuffs you; after all a badge is an essential element of a cop, so by Serious’s logic he is no longer a cop.

 

[kch86]

Don’t you see the problem here? There is no such thing as “human DNA”. There is very loosely defined range of DNA we consider as “human”. No living human has ever had “perfect recollection” and “perfect pitch” and “perfect mathematical and chess playing abilities” along with “perfect health” and “perfect linguistic skills”… and… and… such a “being” would be super human. Also this being could be resistant to all diseases, would not be susceptible to bodily decay… could live for thousands of years… so on what grounds would you consider it “human”? Where does the “humans” end, and "super-human mutants begin?

It’s DNA that, given the chance, will produce a man or a woman. Theoretical superhuman mutants would too be entitled to the same rights and protections as humans and I would treat them as such.

Good trick, but it will not fly (literally ). Just because there is a chicken zygote in the omlette, no sane person would consider it a “fried chicken”. Is it “white meat”? Or “dark meat”?

It is simply a chicken at an early stage of development that has been fried. A chicken has to be older to produce meat.

Indeed. But they are not human “beings”. Suppose that there will be a technology in the future where one human cell can be used to grow into a human being… (cloning, anyone?). Will that technology “elevate” the status of one human cell into a “human being” just because that human cell could be used to grow into a human being?

If you take a single human cell and use technology to engineer it in such a way that it takes on the characteristics of a fertilised human egg that given time and the right conditions, will develop into a man or a woman, then at the very point in time when that technology gives that cell those characteristics, that cell becomes a human being.

I see. You say it “will” have long term undesirable consequences, and not it “might” have long term undesirable consequences. The word “will” have is much more “definitive” than “might” have. If something just “might” have some indesirable consequences it is just a possibility. But if some things “will” have (no if’s and’s and but’s) some consequences that is a whole different ballgame. I still see nothing wrong with being permissive toward those endeavors which do not hurt others.

Yes. I’m coming from a religious perspective so I strongly believe that it is and it will increasingly continue to do so. That’s why I said “will” instead of “might.”

My conversation with you has been enlightening.
I think that our views are not that different. I could actually say that I too see nothing wrong with being permissive toward those endeavours that objectively do not hurt others physically or spiritually. If we took away the spiritual and objective aspects of my thinking and changed my understanding of what constitutes the other person (i.e. what a human being is), then I’d imagine that I’d reach very similar conclusions to you.

 

[John21652]

In another thread, I summarised the current dogmatic morality of secularism as follows.

1. “Wrong” isa) something that causes subjective harm or

b) denying someone (2)2) “Right” is what you want.

So, how do you argue with this impenetrable mindset? Any ideas?

In every society there is conflict between desires, or preferences.

In the event of a conflict, who decides on what is “wrong” and what is “right”?

And if someone is appointed to decide, what criteria will they use?

Subjective criteria, or an objective standard?

If no-one is appointed, does ‘last man standing’ decide right from wrong?

 

[Serious]

It’s DNA that, given the chance, will produce a man or a woman. Theoretical superhuman mutants would too be entitled to the same rights and protections as humans and I would treat them as such.

The trouble with this definition is that there is no way to define who is a human and who is not. The boundaries are loose and arbitrary. Humans share about 98% of their genes with chimpanzees. That is a huge “overlap”, and still we do not consider chimps to be humans. And besides, what is so special about DNA? What about some being who has nothing to do with the genetic material we are composed of, but acts somewhat like a human? It could be a space alien, or an android, or even a fully silicon based “robot”. Would they be afforded the same protection?

It is simply a chicken at an early stage of development that has been fried. A chicken has to be older to produce meat.

But we still call it an egg and not a chicken. Do you think that this distinction is not really valid? Is there a valid distinction between a medical student and fully qualified medical doctor?

If you take a single human cell and use technology to engineer it in such a way that it takes on the characteristics of a fertilised human egg that given time and the right conditions, will develop into a man or a woman, then at the very point in time when that technology gives that cell those characteristics, that cell becomes a human being.

Any human cell already contains a full set of chromosomes. In this respect it already resembles a fertilized ovum. Now you said “given time and the right conditions, will develop into a man or a woman”. This sentence seems to have a “hidden” part in it, namely: “naturally”. What if it would never develop by itself, but if you keep giving the right “prodding”, enzymes, nutrition, whatever, then it will develop into something that acts like a human. I am talking about about androids here…

Yes. I’m coming from a religious perspective so I strongly believe that it is and it will increasingly continue to do so. That’s why I said “will” instead of “might.”

Are you talking about some logically inescapable slippery slope here?

My conversation with you has been enlightening.

Likewise. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I think that our views are not that different. I could actually say that I too see nothing wrong with being permissive toward those endeavours that objectively do not hurt others physically or spiritually. If we took away the spiritual and objective aspects of my thinking and changed my understanding of what constitutes the other person (i.e. what a human being is), then I’d imagine that I’d reach very similar conclusions to you.

Well, I do not deny that there can be objective hurt, even if it is consensual. The German example pointed that out. Let me give you another example. In the Philippines Catholicism is very strong. There are people (not too many, but there are some) who wish to be crucified (temporarily) to be able to offer up their suffering. In my eyes they are “weird”, but they are adults, and I respect their wishes. What do you say about them? Should their wishes be denied on the ground that the procedure is objectively harmful to them?

 

[prodigalson2011]

The trouble with this definition is that there is no way to define who is a human and who is not. The boundaries are loose and arbitrary. Humans share about 98% of their genes with chimpanzees. That is a huge “overlap”, and still we do not consider chimps to be humans. And besides, what is so special about DNA? What about some being who has nothing to do with the genetic material we are composed of, but acts somewhat like a human? It could be a space alien, or an android, or even a fully silicon based “robot”. Would they be afforded the same protection?

Sorry to butt in, but I must. The boundaries are clear enough that scientists can readily determine whether DNA belongs to a human or not. The boundaries are clear enough that a human being cannot reproduce with a chimpanzee.

But we still call it an egg and not a chicken. Do you think that this distinction is not really valid? Is there a valid distinction between a medical student and fully qualified medical doctor?

Semantics doesn’t change reality. Lovers call each other baby. Does that make them infants?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Sure. A freshly impregnated egg is not a child, it is a zygote. The fetus is not a child. Just like an egg is not a chicken. Are you under the impression that you just consumed a fried chicken when you only had an omlette? (And in the countryside the egg may very well have been impregnated).

If the egg was fertilized, then you indeed ate a chicken.

Yes, of course it is OK. Consensual activity is neither moral nor immoral, it is simply amoral. Which part of: “It is none of your business” don’t you understand? (And please do not try to change the subject by saying: “what if it affects others?”. By definiton we talk about a setup where there are no third parties.)

The problem here is that there is no situation where there are no third parties. That is what’s known as a fantasy world.

 

[kch86]

Humans share about 98% of their genes with chimpanzees… what is so special about DNA? What about…a space alien, or an android… Would they be afforded the same protection?

Well, if we take DNA as a whole, we are actually about 40% identical to yeast. However, over 98% of human DNA is actually noncoding DNA formed of introns, repeats, transposons, non-functional viral elements and the like. It does not participate in transcription or protein synthesis and is probably a result of various evolutionary accretions. Bearing in mind that less than 2% is coding DNA, I can imagine that the actual difference between the coding DNA of a human and a chimp is far more significant, though I don’t have stats to back that up. What I suggest a human is, is a living being belonging to the human species. Ultimately, DNA is the thing that determines whether a living thing belongs to one species or another.

As for a theoretical extraterrestrial, hybrid or robotic creature that had uniquely human characteristics, then yes, they should be afforded the same protection.

But we still call it an egg and not a chicken. Do you think that this distinction is not really valid? Is there a valid distinction between a medical student and fully qualified medical doctor?

Avian reproduction is rather different from mammalian reproduction. The bird egg for the most part forms the nutritive substrate and is separate from the ovum within it, which, if fertilised, can develop into a chick. An egg merely contains the ovum and in itself it never becomes a living thing but merely forms the medium in which, if fertilised, one can develop. A human egg, on the other hand, is the ovum.

Because in a bird egg, this nutritive substrate is always inanimate and separate from the distinct living being growing within it, if we were to crack a fertilised bird egg at various stages of development, we would see different proportions of egg matter and living matter. At the earlier stages the part that we would recognise as being the nutritive egg matter would be large and the part that was the separate living being would be small, and at later stages it would be the living being that physically formed the larger part of the interior of the egg.

A chicken egg never becomes anything other than a chicken egg. The ovum within it, however, becomes a living bird at the moment of fertilisation and always remains separate from the egg, which is merely a shell that contains matter within it to nourish the developing animal.

No, there is no real distinction between a medical student immediately before his receiving a diploma and a recently qualified doctor. I’d trust them equally to operate on me. The question is merely one of legal recognition.

Any human cell already contains a full set of chromosomes. In this respect it already resembles a fertilized ovum. What if…you keep giving the right “prodding”, enzymes, nutrition, whatever, then it will develop into something that acts like a human. I am talking about about androids here…

A skin cell will never under any conditions have the capacity to develop into a human being. Where you modify or “prod” it in such a way that it does, it stops being a skin cell. And theoretical androids possessing human characteristics are to be treated as humans.

Are you talking about some logically inescapable slippery slope here?

In a way, yes. Forgetting for a moment about abortion and the like, I still believe that current secular moral theory and related philosophies have already led to some negative social consequences. We can see that manifested in the frequency of family breakdown and the like, and I don’t think that things have yet reached equilibrium and are still progressing in an unfavourable direction, with likely future consequences that I believe many people of a secular disposition would probably see as undesirable too. Perhaps it could be possible for an atheist to argue for the arbitrary treatment of some moral values as though they were absolute, with reference to the potential consequences of doing otherwise, but I’m not sure a convincing argument could be made.

In the Philippines… [t]here are people (not too many, but there are some) who wish to be crucified… What do you say about them? Should their wishes be denied on the ground that the procedure is objectively harmful to them?

You’ve caught me out again in not defining myself accurately, when I should have simply referred to immorality with reference to absolute values as the determining factor. Objective physical harm is something that can potentially make something immoral, but it is not what I should have had in mind because that would essentially make ear-piercing, the drinking of alcohol, smoking of tobacco or dining at McDonald’s impermissible. There are also practical considerations to be taken into account with regard to the permissibility or tolerability of some acts that are immoral, so you won’t see me arguing for the penalisation of adultery.

As for voluntary crucifixion in the Philippines, I share your gut reaction and see that as “weird” too. You have pointed out that “objective harm” is not in and of itself a valid ground on which to decide the permissibility of an action. So in answer to your question, no, their wishes should not be denied on the ground that it is objectively harmful, and one could evaluate the justifications for ear piercing and indeed circumcision to support the idea that such a ground is invalid. I can imagine that Christian and atheist alike could argue against the permissibility of each of these three things on other grounds, however.

 

[Serious]

Well, if we take DNA as a whole, we are actually about 40% identical to yeast. Ultimately, DNA is the thing that determines whether a living thing belongs to one species or another.

Yes, of course. What I am saying is that the separation into different species is an arbitrary distinction.

As for a theoretical extraterrestrial, hybrid or robotic creature that had uniquely human characteristics, then yes, they should be afforded the same protection.

Thank you. Indeed our ideas are very similar.

Would you call them “honorary” humans? If so, then we can forget about the DNA as determining factor. They all would belong into the category of sentient beings. Some chimpanzees can communicate with sign language. If a hypothetical chimp would pass the Turing test, I would think that to include that chimp into the group of “honorary humans” would be a prudent procedure. As such I do not consider the DNA as an important factor, rather the “behavior” of the entity involved.

A chicken egg never becomes anything other than a chicken egg. The ovum within it, however, becomes a living bird at the moment of fertilisation and always remains separate from the egg, which is merely a shell that contains matter within it to nourish the developing animal.

I would argue that it is at the first stage of becoming a bird. See the reasoning below.

No, there is no real distinction between a medical student immediately before his receiving a diploma and a recently qualified doctor. I’d trust them equally to operate on me. The question is merely one of legal recognition.

And we agree here, too. Let me paraphrase Forrest Gump: “a doctor is as a doctor does”. But the point is more difficult than that. At the moment the new student enrolls in college, he will become a medical student, but not a medical doctor. During his “evolution” in those 5 years he will become more and more “like” a doctor, as his knowledge grows. We arbitrarily draw the legal line with the diploma. We could draw the line at some (equally arbitrary point) prior, or even later than that. But it would be absurd to say: “enrolled student == doctor”.

A skin cell will never under any conditions have the capacity to develop into a human being. Where you modify or “prod” it in such a way that it does, it stops being a skin cell. And theoretical androids possessing human characteristics are to be treated as humans.

Again, we have excellent grounds for agreement.

In a way, yes. Forgetting for a moment about abortion and the like, I still believe that current secular moral theory and related philosophies have already led to some negative social consequences.

Maybe so, and some positive ones, too. There are no systems where there are only positive consequences (or only negative ones). As the old sayings went: “the fundamental problem of capitalism that it does not spread wealth equally”, and “the fundamental problem of communism is that it spreads poverty equally”. Can’t have the good side without the bad - which is of course sad, but what can we do about it?

We can see that manifested in the frequency of family breakdown and the like, and I don’t think that things have yet reached equilibrium and are still progressing in an unfavourable direction, with likely future consequences that I believe many people of a secular disposition would probably see as undesirable too.

Well, this could lead to whole new conversation. In the “good old” Victorian era, there was just as much marital infidelity as today, except it was “hidden”. You may disagree with me, but if a marriage went “south”, it is much healthier to end it, and start a freash one. Contrary to the old concept, “marriages are not made in heaven”. In my eyes the idea of coming clean and preserving friendship is far more preferable than to keep living in a bad relationship, which will ruin the life of everyone, including the children. As a matter of fact, in my opinion we live in the best of times today, and I am very optimistic that the times will be even better “tomorrow”.

You’ve caught me out again in not defining myself accurately, when I should have simply referred to immorality with reference to absolute values as the determining factor.

As for voluntary crucifixion in the Philippines, I share your gut reaction and see that as “weird” too. You have pointed out that “objective harm” is not in and of itself a valid ground on which to decide the permissibility of an action. So in answer to your question, no, their wishes should not be denied on the ground that it is objectively harmful, and one could evaluate the justifications for ear piercing and indeed circumcision to support the idea that such a ground is invalid. I can imagine that Christian and atheist alike could argue against the permissibility of each of these three things on other grounds, however.

Maybe we could. But the bottom line is most uplifting. We have a lot of good grounds for agreement. And this happens much too rarely, but when it does happen it calls for a celebration. /cheers mate!

 

[kch86]

Yes, of course. What I am saying is that the separation into different species is an arbitrary distinction.

It can be to an extent, but if you define a species as a family of organisms that cannot create fertile offspring with a member of another species, then we’re dealing with distinct lineages of the evolutionary tree. Or else we could define it as: if the parent(s) is/are (honorary) human, the offspring is (honorary) human. Notice I allow for a single parent, as would be the case in cloning.

If a hypothetical chimp would pass the Turing test, I would think that to include that chimp into the group of “honorary humans” would be a prudent procedure. As such I do not consider the DNA as an important factor, rather the “behavior” of the entity involved.

Now this opens up a whole set of interesting questions. I’m well aware of the impressive intelligence of certain animal species.

I am not too familiar with the Turing test or whether it would be a good or accurate way of determining whether something exhibits the characteristics of a human, so let’s call a hypothetical test that would be the Human test. If an animal individual were to pass the Human test, then I see no harm in according it “honorary human” status. I do however think that the ability of an animal to recognise itself in the mirror or similar tests that demonstrate some rudimentary levels of self-awareness or other characteristics that have been used to justify according them some sort of elevated status fall far short, so the test would have to be pretty good.

I am not aware of any animal species in the world that exhibits remotely what one could truly term to be human characteristics. And so, despite their great levels of intelligence as compared to other animals, I do think that according chimpanzees in general “honorary human” status would not only be unjustified but an affront to science, as it would prevent these animals from being used in animal experimentation, which, in the case of primates, could be particularly fruitful by reason of their biological similarity to humans. As I said before, I would allow for an individual mutant chimp (or cat or fish for that matter) to be given protection, but chimps as a whole, despite their intelligence, fall short.

Now, we meet with other interesting problems here because if we wholly focus on an individual’s ability to pass some sort of intelligence test as the basis for affording them protection, then we could justify scientific experimentation not only on chimpanzees but also on small children and on severely retarded human adults. From my perspective, it is belonging to a species that in the course of normal development would develop human characteristics that is enough for an individual of that species to be afforded protection. Thus, being in an early stage of development, as is the case of a small child, or suffering a failure in development, as is the case of the retarded human, should not exempt the individual from having the rights of a human being.

In the case of an extraterrestrial, it would have to be determined that a normally developed adult of the species generally exhibits human characteristics, and then on that basis, protection could be afforded to the species as a whole in much the same way as with human beings.

By according this elevated status to all living beings belonging to the human or an “honorary human” species, it is also significant that this would mean protection would be afforded to a human embryo in a Petri dish and not to a fully developed chimpanzee in an animal experimentation lab. I believe that is the correct outcome. And don’t get me wrong - I have no bone to pick with animals and I firmly believe that they should be protected from unjustifiable suffering, even in an experimentation setting.

The difference between the human embryo and the chimp is that in the first scenario, it is a human being, and if you allow it to develop normally and fast forward the embryo 20 years you may well end up with a talented male vocalist or America’s Next Top Model. Or America’s Next Paris Hilton, for that matter. If you fast forward the chimp 20 years you’ve still got a chimp. Now granted, the difference between Paris Hilton and a chimp might not be that great, but my point is that this little illustration at least gives a little glimpse of why something as seemingly inconsequential as playing with a few cells in a Petri dish might actually be an issue.

At the moment the new student enrolls in college, he will become a medical student, but not a medical doctor. During his “evolution” in those 5 years he will become more and more “like” a doctor, as his knowledge grows. We arbitrarily draw the legal line with the diploma. But it would be absurd to say: “enrolled student == doctor”.

I see the point you are trying to make, but the “student” and “doctor” are just names for the stages of development of something that is of the same essence - “man.” So, much as it would be absurd to say “enrolled student == doctor” so too would it be absurd to say “toddler == teenager”, but both are of the same essence - “human.” And so a chicken isn’t at any point of its life a non-chicken so that it could become a chicken, and prior to its being a chicken it didn’t exist. Instead, the chicken goes through various stages of development from embryo to chick to adolescent to adult to Kentucky Fried Chicken. But throughout the whole process of becoming Finger Lickin’ Good, it remains just that. A chicken.

Well, this could lead to whole new conversation. In the “good old” Victorian era

Damn 6000 character limit.

Trust me, I don’t propose returning to the suffocating social mores and prudery of the Victorian era. 1995 minus abortion would be fine. I’ll have to address this tomorrow in another post.

All the best to you!

 

[Serious]

It can be to an extent, but if you define a species as a family of organisms that cannot create fertile offspring with a member of another species, then we’re dealing with distinct lineages of the evolutionary tree. Or else we could define it as: if the parent(s) is/are (honorary) human, the offspring is (honorary) human. Notice I allow for a single parent, as would be the case in cloning.

I agree, but this would still be a biological concept and not a philosophical one. Since we agreed that despite the differences in the biological “building blocks” the space alien, the android and the silicon-based “guy” (I would rather not use the word "robot) all merit the same respect and protection as humans, in essence we discarded the idea that the biology is the deciding factor.

I am not too familiar with the Turing test or whether it would be a good or accurate way of determining whether something exhibits the characteristics of a human, so let’s call a hypothetical test that would be the Human test.

That is what it is. It states that if one can conduct a “sufficiently long” conversation with another entity (for example on the phone) and at the end of this concersation he cannot decide if he was talking to another human or not, then he would be obligated to accept the human “status” of the other entity. The phrase “sufficiently long” is determined by the human experimenter. The separation of the two partners is necessary, because otherwise the human party might be prejudiced against someone who does not “look” human.

If an animal individual were to pass the Human test, then I see no harm in according it “honorary human” status.

Agreed… again. Is this getting “boring”, or what? No, not at all.

I am not aware of any animal species in the world that exhibits remotely what one could truly term to be human characteristics. And so, despite their great levels of intelligence as compared to other animals, I do think that according chimpanzees in general “honorary human” status would not only be unjustified but an affront to science, as it would prevent these animals from being used in animal experimentation, which, in the case of primates, could be particularly fruitful by reason of their biological similarity to humans. As I said before, I would allow for an individual mutant chimp (or cat or fish for that matter) to be given protection, but chimps as a whole, despite their intelligence, fall short.

The animal was just a hypothetical scenario. I do not expect any animal to pass the Turig-test. But with generical engineering it might become a reality sometime in the future.

Now, we meet with other interesting problems here because if we wholly focus on an individual’s ability to pass some sort of intelligence test as the basis for affording them protection, then we could justify scientific experimentation not only on chimpanzees but also on small children and on severely retarded human adults.

Actually it is not an intelligence test per se. No one expects a 4 years old to be able to converse as college professor. It is simply a method of deciding, is this entity a sentient being or not. And in the case of doubt, it is wise to err on the side to defining the lines too wide, rather than too narrow.

From my perspective, it is belonging to a species that in the course of normal development would develop human characteristics that is enough for an individual of that species to be afforded protection. Thus, being in an early stage of development, as is the case of a small child, or suffering a failure in development, as is the case of the retarded human, should not exempt the individual from having the rights of a human being.

In principle I would agree with you. However, in reality there are conflicting interests, where unpalatable decisons must be made. I think about the life-boat scenarios. Suppose that there is a limited food supply and you must choose to feed your child or feed a sick, old and retarded person. No one would blame you if you chose to feed your child and thus condemn the other party to death. You cannot choose to sacrifice yourself either. The retarded person would not be able to care for the child.

…my point is that this little illustration at least gives a little glimpse of why something as seemingly inconsequential as playing with a few cells in a Petri dish might actually be an issue.

In other words you decided the “value” based upon what that “entity” might become in the future. Not necessarily “will” become, but “might” become. I had a conversation once with a woman who adamantly asserted that the zygote’s implantation into the uterus wall is the “dividing line”. She argued that ferilized eggs are explelled from the woman’s body on a regular basis, so the fusion of the sperm and egg is just one necessary but not sufficient stage in the development. She certainly had a point.

I see the point you are trying to make, but the “student” and “doctor” are just names for the stages of development of something that is of the same essence - “man.”

Finally we have a misunderstanding Yeee-haaa! No, I am not interested in the human part. It could be any entity in different stages of development. I am simply pointing out that during a development process there are both quantitative and qualitative differences, where the entity in question is significantly different and there will be different “rights” afforded to him/her/it. By the way, the “essence” is a very problematic concept. Let me give another example. An acorn is the first stage in the development of an oak tree. If all sorts of factors come out favorably, the acorn will grow into an oak tree. But it would be absurd to declare that “acorn == oak tree”.

 

[kch86]

I agree, but this would still be a biological concept and not a philosophical one. Since we agreed that despite the differences in the biological “building blocks” the space alien, the android and the silicon-based “guy” (I would rather not use the word "robot) all merit the same respect and protection as humans, in essence we discarded the idea that the biology is the deciding factor.

That’s true, biology is not the universal deciding factor. However, it is not an individual’s own sentience at a particular point in time but belonging to a category characterised by sentience that affords him protection, and a test for sentience might be how one decides whether beings in that particular category deserve protection or if a genetically-engineered individual in a normally non-sentient category would.

Biology is a convenient way of delineating this category in the case of humans, the only sentient beings known at this time. Because there are endless theoretical possibilities of how the biology of an extraterrestrial being might work, or how to categorise machines, whether through the presence of circuitry known to give rise to sentience in other machines of its type or otherwise, the practical problem of defining categories of other sentient beings may be more difficult and may well have to be done by analogy, and so we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, so to speak. This is how I imagine it right now, although there may well be different and better ways of defining and dealing with the problem should it arise, or there may be a more universal principle I haven’t thought of.

In principle I would agree with you. However, in reality there are conflicting interests, where unpalatable decisons must be made. I think about the life-boat scenarios. Suppose that there is a limited food supply and you must choose to feed your child or feed a sick, old and retarded person. No one would blame you if you chose to feed your child and thus condemn the other party to death. You cannot choose to sacrifice yourself either. The retarded person would not be able to care for the child.

Surprise surprise, we agree. In this life boat scenario, even if it were your own child who were retarded and there were another healthy child on board, then, as I understand it, it would not be immoral to feed just yourself and your own child, as there is nothing inherently wrong in doing so, and so the other child’s death would be the unintended (but expected) consequence of your trying to save yourself and your own child. I understand that perhaps in other scenarios we would reach different conclusions but at least in this particular case, we’re in agreement.

In other words you decided the “value” based upon what that “entity” might become in the future. Not necessarily “will” become, but “might” become. I had a conversation once with a woman who adamantly asserted that the zygote’s implantation into the uterus wall is the “dividing line”. She argued that ferilized eggs are explelled from the woman’s body on a regular basis, so the fusion of the sperm and egg is just one necessary but not sufficient stage in the development. She certainly had a point.

Almost. The value is not based on the particular thing it may become but based simply upon the fact that it is human, and I just illustrated its humanity with reference to the various valuable, or non-valuable things such an entity may become once it becomes sentient.

And I disagree with that woman. In a harsh, natural environment without modern amenities or medical care, it may be that close to half of children born to a woman may die before reaching the age of 5 due to disease or other factors. A high mortality rate doesn’t make a child under the age of 5 any less of a human being. So too it is with a failure to implant or other fatal failures of development, which may be caused by genetic errors or other factors. The organism simply dies naturally at the earliest stage of development.

 

[kch86]

Finally we have a misunderstanding Yeee-haaa! No, I am not interested in the human part. It could be any entity in different stages of development. I am simply pointing out that during a development process there are both quantitative and qualitative differences, where the entity in question is significantly different and there will be different “rights” afforded to him/her/it. By the way, the “essence” is a very problematic concept. Let me give another example. An acorn is the first stage in the development of an oak tree. If all sorts of factors come out favorably, the acorn will grow into an oak tree. But it would be absurd to declare that “acorn == oak tree”.

Again, you express your point very well. And it’s true that “essence” might be a problematic concept, but I am not a philosopher and I’m simply trying to express myself as well as I can using my knowledge of language as a layman.

And I agree with you that different rights should be afforded to beings at different stages of development - I am in no way suggesting that embryos should be driving cars.

Where we diverge is the basis on which the right to life specifically should be accorded to the individual, where I suggest it should not be on the basis of how well he can express his fundamental nature, but on the basis of his fundamental nature itself.

So what the acorn and the oak tree both fundamentally are is “oak,” and the “oak tree” is just a mature expression of what an “oak” is. An acorn to an oak tree is what a tadpole is to a frog. If oaks were some magical fairy trees that for some reason deserved protection, then both oak tree and acorn should be afforded that protection on the basis of them both being “oak.”

A more down-to-earth scenario would be that of a hypothetical endangered butterfly. Let’s give it a cool name; let’s call it the Scorpion Butterfly. In common with many insects, it exists in two radically different forms, as a larva and as a winged insect. Both are an expression of the nature of the organism we know as the Scorpion Butterfly. The fact it’s named by its mature form is irrelevant - we could call it a flurp, and both the larva and the winged insect would be two manifestations of a flurp. The acorn is an oak nut or seed, and the caterpillar is simply a Scorpion Butterfly larva.

If we were to protect the endangered butterfly, it would be irrational to protect only its mature expression and let people collect the larvae for fishing bait. It would be absurd to say, “caterpillar == butterfly”, but so too would it be absurd to say that a Scorpion Butterfly caterpillar and a Scorpion Butterfly butterfly are somehow different organisms, or that “flurp != flurp.” The English words “caterpillar” and “butterfly” merely describe infant and mature expressions of fundamentally the same thing.

If it were only the mature expression of the organism that were protected, then the protection granted would be largely inadequate, and so if the organism known as the Scorpion Butterfly somehow deserves protection, it only makes sense that the organism is to be protected in all stages of development. And this begs the question, why should an endangered insect enjoy a more priviliged position with regard to its right to life than a human being?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

In my experience, it is extremely difficult to discuss these questions with a secularist because they reject objectivity. The way the OP has defined the problem is spot on. However, given that all human beings sense the natural law even when they reject it, we will surely find a point where the secularist will agree with us. People will inevitably find something to be objectively wrong, even if the very idea contradicts secularist thinking, as outlined by the OP. So the question is: if a person admits that something is wrong, then surely there is a criteria for determining why something is wrong. Also, if a person admits that there is one thing in this world that is wrong, that opens the door for arguing that other things are wrong too.

This is not the most sophisticated formula out there but it makes people think. I’ve had a number of conversations with secularists about morality and I can’t say that I converted them to my way of thinking, but I did challenge their assumptions and got them to answer tough questions. That’s a start.

 

[Cat_Herder]

In my experience, it is extremely difficult to discuss these questions with a secularist because they reject objectivity.

This is why atheism and communism are the same thing. Once objective morality is gone, everyone is equal, and so let’s divide up everything so each comrade is equal. Of course that doesn’t work, and if the person you’re talking to is too dense to understand that something that kills 98 million people is objectively evil, it’s time to dust off your sandals and walk away.

 

[Serious]

In my experience, it is extremely difficult to discuss these questions with a secularist because they reject objectivity.

You confuse “objective” and “absolute”. Do you know the difference between them? The “absolute” version says: “there are acts, which are always wrong, regardless of the circumstances” - in other words it attempts to evaluate actions as if they happened in a vacuum. The “objective” version says that actions cannot be separated from their environment, in order to evaluate an action, all circumstances must be evaluated.

 

[Sair]

In another thread, I summarised the current dogmatic morality of secularism as follows.

1. “Wrong” is a) something that causes subjective harm or

b) denying someone (2)

1. “Right” is what you want.

I also noted that it is more or less identical to the central doctrine of witchcraft or Satanism: “Do what thou wilt but harm none,” (Witchcraft, Satanism) or, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” (Satanism)

Now, Catholics can argue their points from a secular perspective until they’re blue in the face and they will fail miserably because today’s secularist is different from the pre-Christian atheist, who did not believe in the above dogma. If you bring up Natural Law when talking to a modern secularist, it will be like talking to a brick wall. He only accepts the above premises, consciously or subconsciously, and rejects everything that contradicts them.

Reductio ad absurdum is ineffective too. As we can see, secularists willingly embrace all that the above entails including abortion, euthanasia, and we’ve already heard of the dogma being taken to its logical conclusion in the paper on “after-birth abortion” that appeared in the Journal of Medical Ethics recently.

What this very simple dogma means is that a wrong is only committed when a person experiences subjective harm.

That means it’s okay to harm someone objectively (kill them) if they consent to it, and so we can justify assisted suicide (criteria 1a: consent given = no subjective harm = no wrong; criteria 2: what they want = right).

It also means abortion is okay because even though the baby is harmed objectively, he or she is not sufficiently aware to be able to perceive it, and so is subjectively unharmed (criteria 1a: no subjective harm = no wrong). In fact, outlawing abortion is wrong (criteria 1b denying what she wants = wrong).

I needn’t even mention that in that view homosexuality is right (criteria 1a: consent = no subjective harm = no wrong; criteria 2: what they want = right) and opposition to gay marriage is wrong (criteria 1b: denying what they (gay people) want = wrong)

So, how do you argue with this impenetrable mindset? Any ideas?

Your argument falls down in its failure to recognise the significance of the sentient/non-sentient distinction, as evidenced by your reference to subjective harm and objective harm. For a sentient being, objective harm is usually subjectively distressing. However, for a non-sentient being, objective harm is just a thing that happens.

Would you extend your criterion of objective harm to other animals, to trees, to stone? Or does it only matter to you if objective harm is done to humans?

To use two examples - abortion and euthanasia: in the former, before a certain time (considered generally to be the first trimester, when the foetus is insufficiently developed to feel pain or have any form of consciousness) there is no subjective harm, any more than there would be if you chopped down a tree (and quite possibly less). Does this only matter to you because it’s a human life? My skin cells are just as human and just as sentient, and they die and are shed every single day of my life. Is it morally righteous to demand that every child conceived should be born, regardless of its parent(s)'s ability to give it a satisfactory start in life? Regardless of the impact upon the world? Regardless of the fact that so many wanted pregnancies end in miscarriage, which, according to your worldview, can only be the will of your God?

In the latter case, when a person finds their life intolerable, and wishes to exercise their personal autonomy to end it, whose authority should forbid them - in other words, should demand that they suffer intolerably for the remainder of their life, however long it may be? Your God? Who has never been demonstrated to exist? And again, when it comes to objective and subjective harm, let’s weigh things in the balance - suppose the person in question is slowly dying from cancer. Is it objectively more harmful to actively kill them (albeit in a relatively painless manner) than to allow the cancer to continue to ravage their body until it can no longer sustain itself? As for subjective harm, if a person is reconciled to their death, and cannot tolerate the suffering entailed by continuing in life, the subjective harm is minimised by hastening their death.

And furthermore, where is the ‘objective’ harm in homosexuality? No-one has ever given me a satisfactory answer to this question. All I get are subjective opinions as to how ‘distasteful’ it is and the insistence that it’s wrong because homosexual unions can’t produce children. Strangely, neither can infertile heterosexual unions, nor, for that matter, can church-sanctioned celibacy have any hope of offspring. It’s not as if not having children is a bad thing in and of itself.

Secular ethics are about balance, empathy, understanding and mercy, not just “do whatever you want and damn the consequences.” It is not about rigid rules, and is often far better thought out than religiously-sanctioned moralising.

And please - if you’re going to dismiss secular morality as deficient, please try to understand the shortcomings of your religious dictates as well.

 

[Sair]

There is a man who wants to be killed and eaten and there is a man who wants to eat him.
How is that different from there being a man who wants to be the passive party and the man who wants to be the active party in the case of homosexual sex?

If the latter is permissible, so should the former be.

Can you genuinely not see the objective difference in the two situations?

Do you place any value at all upon individual preferences, or do you think that the best thing for every single person is to follow the strictures of Christian morality, regardless of said persons’ situations and preferences?

Such is the result of subscribing to a black-and-white conception of morality. I sincerely hope that enlightenment will come your way.