Socialism

[ribozyme]

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw

That’s an amusing three minute and twenty second YouTube illustration of why government-based solutions don’t work.

So what is Newt going to purpose to track illegal immigrants? Microchips? But many Christians will oppose them based on a passage in Revelation and civil liberty groups will complain about a lack of privacy.

Then I suppose you oppose government legislation against abortion, verdad?

Biotech drugs are especially appealing because they face no competition from generics: No regulatory pathway yet exists in the U.S. for bringing to market generic biotech drugs. So until Congress creates such a pathway, no generic threat will exist to the $4,400 a month that Genentech Inc. charges for its cancer drug Avastin, or the $200,000 a year that Genzyme Corp. gets for Cerezyme to treat Gaucher disease.

I suppose the government will mess everything up, so it is a good idea not to invoke the regulatory authorities and keep prices high.

But I suppose you respect the right of Genzyme to charge an exorbitant price for imiglucerase on the free market. I also suppose you will respect the right of parents to pay for a diagnostic test to confirm a homozygous phenotype (Gaucher’s disease is autosomal recessive) for the fetus and I also presume you support their right to pay for an abortion on the free market if a homozygous genotype is confirmed as the parents would not have to pay exorbitant co-pays for that drug.

online.wsj.com/article/SB119689933952615133.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g4:r5:c1e-09

I also think you are thrilled with idea of millions of people taking torcetrapib because that regulatory bogeyman known as the FDA shouldn’t exist:

Shouldn’t the thought of taking torcetrapib strike terror in dyslipidemic Catholics? The torcetrapib + atorvastatin arm of a 15k patient Phase III trial experienced a higher mortality rate than the placebo + atorvastatin arm content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/357/21/2109 ]. In my opinion, this is one reason (and rofecoxib [the “V” word synonymous with “lawsuit” cough vioxx cough]) why expensive clinical trials should be conducted and this probably justifies some high drug prices.

BTW, I did not advocate government redistribution in this thread that would render gini zero.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, Singer was actually being serious. For example, members of the religious right claim to be a pillar of moral rectitude. Furthermore, they claim that they “respect human life,” but it shows endorse conduct that is antithetical to their beliefs such as bombing innocent civilians.

They do not genuflect before “the culture of life;” most of the material I have read in this thread is consistent with the philosophy of Ayn Rand who expatiated that selfishness is a virtue.

Adolph Hitler was serious, too. And the main difference between Hitler and Singer is that Singer doesn’t have the political power – yet – to put all his ideas into practice.

 

[milde]

No, Singer was actually being serious. For example, members of the religious right claim to be a pillar of moral rectitude. Furthermore, they claim that they “respect human life,” but it shows endorse conduct that is antithetical to their beliefs such as bombing innocent civilians.

How many right wing conservatives do you know that have bombed innocent civilians. I certainly don’t know any and I doubt you do either. To assume people who are religious bomb innocent civilians is really beyond ludicrous.

 

[ribozyme]

How many right wing conservatives do you know that have bombed innocent civilians. I certainly don’t know any and I doubt you do either. To assume people who are religious bomb innocent civilians is really beyond ludicrous.

Last month, the military forces that this same president commands aimed a missile at a house in Damadola, a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border. Eighteen people were killed, among them five children. The target of the attack, Al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was not among the dead, although lesser figures in the terrorist organization reportedly were.

Bush did not apologize for the attack, nor did he reprimand those who ordered it. Apparently, he believes that the chance of killing an important terrorist leader is sufficient justification for firing a missile that will almost certainly kill innocent human beings.

I never said they bombed innocent civilians; but they do endorse those actions.

No religious conservatives railed against Bush for this action…

So if you respect human life, wouldn’t you express acerbity over this attack.

 

[milde]

I never said they bombed innocent civilians; but they do endorse those actions.

No they do not. Most of my friends are Christian. Even most people in America are. I can’t remember ever hearing anyone say, “Hey, let’s just go out and bomb some families.”

What you’ve done is misinterpret the fact that many on the right support the war in the middle east to mean that they want to bomb innocent civilians. That’s downright dishonest. I suspect you are smart enough to know it too.

 

[ribozyme]

No they do not. Most of my friends are Christian. Even most people in America are. I can’t remember ever hearing anyone say, “Hey, let’s just go out and bomb some families.”

What you’ve done is misinterpret the fact that many on the right support the way in the middle east to mean that they want to bomb innocent civilians. That’s downright dishonest. I suspect you are smart enough to know it too.

But do you believe this action by the Bush Administration is justified?

If so, it is justified to pursue research on human embryos that may cure diseases, just as bombing a village may kill an Al-Qaeda leader.

That was Peter Singer’s argument for supporting embryonic stem cell research. The ends justify the means. The religious right cannot use that argument.

But, like you said, they are just “innocent civilians”, faceless individuals that have no relationship to us.

Recent history has shown that you can literally kill a million people in an African country and Americans just wonder what you are talking about when you try to tell them. It’s not because they don’t care about people but because they don’t understand.

But I do not want to talk about that, what about the government laws against abortion? Government based solutions don’t work, right? And the free market is the best mechanism regarding the abortion issue not the intrusive state.

 

[milde]

But do you believe this action by the Bush Administration is justified?

If so, it is justified to pursue research on human embryos that may cure diseases, just as bombing a village may kill an Al-Qaeda leader.

That was Peter Singer’s argument for supporting embryonic stem cell research. The ends justify the means. The religious right cannot use that argument.

But I do not want to talk about that, what about the government laws against abortion? Government based solutions don’t work, right? And the free market is the best mechanism regarding the abortion issue not the intrusive state.

I’m all for research on embryos that can save human life or improve the life of those that are crippled. I do not support abortion but I don’t support laws against it as it is not my place, or governments, to decide that for someone else. Each of us make our own decision on that.

The religious right does not support bombing innocent civilians. Maybe you’ve had too much red wine tonight. I promise that if you asked that in a catholic church you’d find no show of hands.

 

[ribozyme]

Adolph Hitler was serious, too. And the main difference between Hitler and Singer is that Singer doesn’t have the political power – yet – to put all his ideas into practice.

How would a world controlled by Peter Singer be horrible? I would imagine it abortion, consensual euthanasia, and embryonic stem cells would be prevalent. But how would it result in genocides that would be in the league of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

I will admit one consequence of a world where Peter Singer’s philosophy was strongly adhered to: maybe I wouldn’t be here to type this as I would have probably been discarded as an embryo from a genetic test as it deemed me not having a life worth living. But I guess that is the consequence of a quality of life utilitarian ethic that Singer adheres to. I am willing to accept such consequences mainly because I am somewhat discontent with the state of affairs of humanity and I feel powerless to solve anything. The notion of myself being aborted in my mother’s womb does not frighten me at all. However, such a philosophy does not permit killing me now as I have interests and I hope to survive a few decades.

How does Singer’s philosophy will recapitulate the killing fields of Cambodia or the gas chambers at Auschwitz? I think it would simply extoll parental choice (a libertarian virtue) with human reproduction.

 

[rlg94086]

How would a world controlled by Peter Singer be horrible? I would imagine it abortion, consensual euthanasia, and embryonic stem cells would be prevalent. But how would it result in genocides that would be in the league of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

I will admit one consequence of a world where Peter Singer’s philosophy was strongly adhered to: maybe I wouldn’t be here to type this as I would have probably been discarded as an embryo from a genetic test as it deemed me not having a life worth living. But I guess that is the consequence of a quality of life utilitarian ethic that Singer adheres to. I am willing to accept such consequences mainly because I am somewhat discontent with the state of affairs of humanity and I feel powerless to solve anything. The notion of myself being aborted in my mother’s womb does not frighten me at all. However, such a philosophy does not permit killing me now as I have interests and I hope to survive a few decades.

How does Singer’s philosophy will recapitulate the killing fields of Cambodia or the gas chambers at Auschwitz? I think it would simply extoll parental choice (a libertarian virtue) with human reproduction.

Don’t you see the utter lack of logic in that statement? It’s not problem aborting someone with unknown potential, but it is wrong to kill someone after choosing not to abort them, because they have interests? :ehh: That makes no sense whatsoever. You are talking about the same being. How did your intrinsic “worth” improve??

 

[ribozyme]

Don’t you see the utter lack of logic in that statement? It’s not problem aborting someone with unknown potential, but it is wrong to kill someone after choosing not to abort them, because they have interests? :ehh: That makes no sense whatsoever. You are talking about the same being. How did your intrinsic “worth” improve??

Peter Singer advocates preference utilitarianism. Under the paradigm of preference utilitarianism, utility is defined as preference satisfaction. Since an embryo or fetus does not even have the capacity to possess such interests, they do not have moral value except as property (a mother can choose whether or not to abort their fetus). Singer also stresses that such beings have the capacity to see themselves as beings with a present, past, and future. However, I do not totally agree with Singer’s philosophy, and my source of recourse to this question is rather antiquated but venerated quote by Jeremy Bentham:

"The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes "

I am a negative utilitarian, and I am concerned the most with suffering. It is unlikely that I would have the neurological hardware to suffer early in my development.

Again, how does Peter Singer’s philosophy lead to Auschwitz. I am not asking whether it would lead to an increased prevalence of abortion. I also acknowledge how I even accepted that I might die under a world that has embraced preference utilitarian even though I am sympathetic to it.

Cogito ergo sum… “I” as an embryo? I would not have the neural hardware to even have a sense of “I”. I wouldn’t even have any sense of subjective experience.

 

[rlg94086]

Peter Singer advocates preference utilitarianism. Under the paradigm of preference utilitarianism, utility is defined as preference satisfaction. Since an embryo or fetus does not even have the capacity to possess such interests, they do not have moral value except as property (a mother can choose whether or not to abort their fetus). Singer also stresses that such beings have the capacity to see themselves as beings with a present, past, and future. However, I do not totally agree with Singer’s philosophy, and my source of recourse to this question is rather antiquated but venerated quote by Jeremy Bentham:

"The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes "

I am a negative utilitarian, and I am concerned the most with suffering. It is unlikely that I would have the neurological hardware to suffer early in my development
.

You don’t believe that a fetus can suffer? You have less understanding of biology than I thought you had. Singer is wrong and incredibly immoral IMO. People like him are a poor influence on our society…therefore I would say his worth is less than most fetuses by his reasoning on “worth.”

 

[ribozyme]

You don’t believe that a fetus can suffer? You have less understanding of biology than I thought you had. Singer is wrong and incredibly immoral IMO. People like him are a poor influence on our society…therefore I would say his worth is less than most fetuses by his reasoning on “worth.”

I do not know when a fetus can feel pain, but I do think it is during week twenty. Brain stem activity is detected 54 days after conception.

Also, I never openly supported infanticide because infants have the capacity to feel pain, nor late term abortions. I suppose early abortions (before the first trimester) would be acceptable within negative utilitarianism.

 

[rlg94086]

I do not know when a fetus can feel pain, but I do think it is during week twenty. Brain stem activity is detected 54 days after conception.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. So, as a negative utilitarian, you are completely opposed to abortion after 20 weeks, correct? It’s not complete enlightenment, but it is a start.

 

[ribozyme]

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. So, as a negative utilitarian, you are completely opposed to abortion after 20 weeks, correct? It’s not complete enlightenment, but it is a start.

I did not say completely, but that is one legitmate reason be consider not providing an abortion.

 

[rlg94086]

I did not say completely, but that is one legitmate reason be consider not providing an abortion.

Not completely? So, some suffering is okay with you. Not very devout in your beliefs, are you?

 

[ribozyme]

Not completely? So, some suffering is okay with you. Not very devout in your beliefs, are you?

Maybe some hereditary diseases; maybe the suffering in potential their lives might outweigh the suffering of abortion.

But my point that a world under the influence of Peter Singer wouldn’t bother me. I sometimes wonder what is my purpose in life. Maybe life is pointless and it would probably be better for the world if I was aborted. I do not see anything horrifying about that. I do not want to live in a world that milde endorses: a world full of selfishness and greed and where altruism is deemed a sign of weakness. The threat of abortion does not bother me thus I have absolutely no compunction for aborted fetuses as they would be spared from such a miserable existence.

I am contesting that Peter Singer’s views would lead to genocide and mass murder comparable to the atrocities committed by Hitler. I cannot imagine gas chambers endorsed by Singer, but he would permit abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How would a world controlled by Peter Singer be horrible? I would imagine it abortion, consensual euthanasia, and embryonic stem cells would be prevalent. But how would it result in genocides that would be in the league of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

You just answered your own question.

How would you like to be put to the test, to justify your usefulness to society? If you are crippled, sick, or otherwise need care, you die – because it costs more to keep you alive than you contribute to society.

If there is anything in your genetic makeup that is deemed “undesireable” you die or are forcibly sterilized.

Consider this – in America, Blacks have an average IQ about 15 points below the norm. And Blacks are over-represented in our prisons. They also more likely to carry Sickle Cell Anemia genes. Should they be “purged” from the gene pool? If you follow Sanger’s logic, they would be.

Hitler would love it – and approve 100%.

 

[milde]

Doesn’t all of this assume that we are going to give people in power the ability to decide what is best for the masses? We do far too much of that already. For example, you can disagree with abortion but agree that others have a right to decide for themselves.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Doesn’t all of this assume that we are going to give people in power the ability to decide what is best for the masses?

That’s exactly what it assumes – for example, it assumes a parent can decide death is best for a child.

We do far too much of that already. For example, you can disagree with abortion but agree that others have a right to decide for themselves.

Can they “decide for themselves” to commit murder, rape, robbery or other crimes?

 

[ribozyme]

You just answered your own question.

How would you like to be put to the test, to justify your usefulness to society? If you are crippled, sick, or otherwise need care, you die – because it costs more to keep you alive than you contribute to society.

If there is anything in your genetic makeup that is deemed “undesireable” you die or are forcibly sterilized.

Consider this – in America, Blacks have an average IQ about 15 points below the norm. And Blacks are over-represented in our prisons. They also more likely to carry Sickle Cell Anemia genes. Should they be “purged” from the gene pool? If you follow Sanger’s logic, they would be.

Hitler would love it – and approve 100%.

I said no mass murder or coerced sterilizations would occur; only abortions, consensual euthanasia, and possibly infanticide.

I said that the thought of being discarded as a fetus or embryo does not bother me at all. Right now, I do not want to die. I have some reasons to be hopeful about the future though. However, if those reasons are rendered invalid… [don’t want to go into it]

Consider this – in America, African-Americans currently earn less money than caucasians. Some people such as Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein argue that this is due to their lower IQ.

Consider this – in American, many conservatives are against government interference and redistribution of resources AND an accompanying faith in the “free market”. Also there is an extreme antipathy against eugenics programs.

Maybe they should follow milde’s suggestion:

Doesn’t all of this assume that we are going to give people in power the ability to decide what is best for the masses? We do far too much of that already. For example, you can disagree with abortion but agree that others have a right to decide for themselves.

I suppose technological advances in the future will make it possible embryo selection to boost their progeny’s IQ by a full standard deviation. Furthermore, genetic engineering will be extremely powerful and provide a much more profound boost in intelligence. But, it would be best that these services be provided by the “free market” and it would be morally wrong for the government to intervene with the reproductive choices of the parents. I suppose only parents who have to financial resources to use these options can have access, while those who do not such as the African-American population in general and poor do not. As Al Masetti pointed out with a YouTube link, government interference would only fail, so it is best to let the free market solve this problem.

Government should not intervene and use the resources of the wealthy to sponsor eugenic enhancement programs for the progeny of the poor. I suppose many viewers of this thread would be extremely content with the laissez faire approach of the government, and the increasing wealth and quality-of-life differential between the wealthy and poor as a result of germinal choice technologies.

Consider this – humans are hierarchial in nature; they want their children to have advantages (relative to other children). Parents will use this to endow their children with an advantage. I will say this as an absolute truth: some Catholics claim to be opposed to eugenics, but most (not all) of them will use these technologies if it can generate an advantage for their children. **I see no need to argue for the use of eugenics on human populations. If these technologies are available, they will be used and it will exacerbate any existing inequalities. You allege that Peter Singer endorses eugenics, but aren’t most people guilty of that same “moral trangression” too?

I guess we do not have to worry about eugenics affecting the African-American population fortunately, so everyone is happy. Do not worry; there would be no eugenics programs, only people basing their decisions via the free market so everything would be Pareto efficient. Your concern, Vern, has no merit.

So, no I personally do not advocate eugenics. I only see a world with more strife, more hatred, and more conflict…