Atheists, Ethics & Medical Experimentation

PDN

Cardinal wrote:

I wouldn't like to rely on empathy to fully explain morality, but you've hit on something important there, i.e. that there is no such thing as morality. I think this is a fairly common misinterpretation of atheistic views on a number of things i.e. that because there is no absolute morality, that there is no morality at all; or that because there is not absolute meaning to the universe, that there is no meaning at all.

I'd argue that this is not the case. These things need to be seen in context, often in a naturalist or humanist context. In my opinion, it is up to us to decide what meaning is, up to us to decide what morality is. I also think that neither concept is reduced in importance by coming from man and not from a god.

As I stated in my OP:

Please note that I am not suggesting that atheists lack morality or ethics, I am just curious as to how you reach them.

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

I find the empathy thesis interesting, because it appears to say there is no such thing as morality per se. If Mengele had no empathy towards the gypsy children he experimented on, then would that mean that his actions were not, in fact, immoral?

IMHO, a potential outcome of atheism is that there is no such thing as morality and all we do is develop common rules to manage our inevitable dealings with each other. But I haven't reached that as a final conclusion yet, as I'm open to some objective basis being shown.

Leaving aside the varieties of interpretations of the Bible for a moment, and just taking morality as a black box, clearly a theist can say that God created morality and put it into the Universe just as he determined the cosmic variables that ultimately caused planets to form and life to emerge. But an atheist, IMHO, can only see morality as a human invention. It's something we have created and are imposing on the world - whether we impose an idea of vegetarianism or we're comfortable with the idea of eating meat, its basically a human creation that we're applying not any cosmic norm that exists outside of the heads of our species.

Hivemind187

In relation to he OP and to the comments regarding Joseph Mengele (and for those of you who would be familiar with your history, his wife).

There is a psychiatric explanation for why Jospeh Mengele was capable of comiting the atrocities he did: He was a sociopath incapable of empathising with other humans. There is evidence to suggest this as much research into the man indicates he had a prediliction for autopsy from an early age (though this maybe construed as conjecture).

In terms of morality, the analogy of Mengele and his vivisection of gypsies, jews, gays, poles and myriad other ethnicities and minorities (used in the political sense), is largely evidence of the evolution case since, as a sociopath, he was incapable of empathising with other living creatures or as viewing them as anything but objects existing solely for his own purposes.

Had Mengele been truly capable of empathising with another human being he would have found his experiments difficult if not impossible on a physical and emotional level. this can be taken not as proof, but certainly as supporting evidence of the evolutionary development of morals based on inherited empathic responses.

Mengele was also a Roman Catholic (not that this really makes much of a difference either way).

Tim Robbins

Cardinal wrote:

Thanks Tim. I wasn't fully aware of the meaning of "sound". A useful addition to my vocabulary.

No worries, in fact it's a very good example of the difference between something being logically sound and logically valid.
I find this issue one of the more difficult issues in atheism and gets avoided by many atheists. It reminds me of the way many Christians avoid difficult question of why do kids get cancer if there is an all loving, all knowing, all caring God?
No argument there from analogy there PDN, They are just both difficult questions whatever side of the fence you are on.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I don't think the idea of an atheist believing in evolution is going to upset anyone who is prepared to post on a Atheist & Agnostic forum. I would be rather disappointed and upset if any of you didn't believe in evolution. But I like the subtle way you use the word "brigade" in a slightly pejorative way to refer to religious people. I must remember that one next time I want to be annoying.

I find the empathy thesis interesting, because it appears to say there is no such thing as morality per se. If Mengele had no empathy towards the gypsy children he experimented on, then would that mean that his actions were not, in fact, immoral?

It is extremely unlikely that Mengele, or any of the Nazis, ever imagined a scenario where a gypsy could have enough power to do good or harm to him. After all, they sincerely believed that the Third Reich would last for a thousand years and the gypsies would be wiped out as a race. So, from an evolutionary perspective, Mengele's actions were very moral and designed to further the survival of the fittest (the Aryan race).

A few points PDN:

1. I don't belief in evolution, just like I don't believe E = MC pow 2, I "tentatively accept" both. If evidence manifests which falsifies either, I will change my opinion. Many atheists adopt this stance.

2. The term "survival of the fittest" is used a lot by Christians and non Christians when discussing Darwinism. The phrase is not used once in 'The origin of species'. More importantly, it fails to accurate descrive natural selection, as it omits the mutation of genes part and is thus misleading.

If you are using it in an argument in evolution theory, it is not accurate, it could also be used in Lamarkism for example another scientific theory now thrown out.

3. In evolution theory, the selection is done by nature not by people. When people make the decisions of what survives and control breeding it is usually referred to as artificial selction.

4. The validity of Evolution theory does not confer the morality of it.
In fact, many atheists and evolution accepting Christians would be quite concerned for the weak. The concept of the welfare state for example, or savig endangered species for example.

For me evolution theory is an explaination of how we got here, doesn't necessarily mean it is where we should derive our ethics from. Philosophy is better for that.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

It is extremely unlikely that Mengele, or any of the Nazis, ever imagined a scenario where a gypsy could have enough power to do good or harm to him. After all, they sincerely believed that the Third Reich would last for a thousand years and the gypsies would be wiped out as a race. So, from an evolutionary perspective, Mengele's actions were very moral and designed to further the survival of the fittest (the Aryan race).

Just a point,

Evolution is neither moral nor immoral. It is a natural process (it would be like commenting on the morality of a lava flow, or a river flow)

Evolution has designed our moral and emotional systems. There are evolutionary reasons why we feel certain ways about certain things, why we have emotions such as guilty shame empathy etc. That doesn't really mean that what is good for evolution is moral. For a start "Good for evolution" is an impossible determination, and is nearly always biased.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote:

Just a point,

Evolution is neither moral nor immoral. It is a natural process (it would be like commenting on the morality of a lava flow, or a river flow)

Evolution has designed our moral and emotional systems. There are evolutionary reasons why we feel certain ways about certain things, why we have emotions such as guilty shame empathy etc. That doesn't really mean that what is good for evolution is moral. For a start "Good for evolution" is an impossible determination, and is nearly always biased.

Yes. Agreed.

Further PDN you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that Menegles actions were cognitively designed to benefit his view of society rather than to fulfil a sadistic curiosity. He was making a "decision" to do those things but I doubt his decision was based on a evolutionary imperitive, rather it was the lack of an aspect of evolved psychology that allowed him to be able to do the terrible things he did.

Schuhart

Hivemind187 wrote:

Further PDN you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that Menegles actions were cognitively designed to benefit his view of society rather than to fulfil a sadistic curiosity. He was making a "decision" to do those things but I doubt his decision was based on a evolutionary imperitive, rather it was the lack of an aspect of evolved psychology that allowed him to be able to do the terrible things he did.

Are we focussing too much on one individual? Surely the point about Mengele is that he was part of a movement with an ideology that some humans were more equal than others, to quote a phrase.

Similarly, do we argue that slave-owning was just a mental aberration by a few individuals or do we accept that at one time it was just perfectly permissable. Is bull-fighting or fox hunting evidence of metal aberrations or simply an example of a society that sets a different arbitrary limit on what is permissable?

Hivemind187

Schuhart wrote:

Are we focussing too much on one individual? Surely the point about Mengele is that he was part of a movement with an ideology that some humans were more equal than others, to quote a phrase.

Similarly, do we argue that slave-owning was just a mental aberration by a few individuals or do we accept that at one time it was just perfectly permissable. Is bull-fighting or fox hunting evidence of metal aberrations or simply an example of a society that sets a different arbitrary limit on what is permissable?

You are equating a human being to a fox here. For some people, empathising with an animal is very easy, for others they consider them to be food or a source of fun. In a certain sense the latter person is a more sociopathic person, this does not mean that they are disfunctional however, only that they are less inclined to naturally empathise with the objectified creature.

As for the issue of slavery. Its a slightly more tricky question in that it is human nature to exploit others if possible, it means that while they are doing the work you can devote more energy into growing larger and reproducing more - a simple evolutionary crane. The arguments that the enslaved people (usually the black man) were inferiror or somehow "sub-human" is little more than cognitive rationalisation of a social situation. Along the line of "all black men I have ever seen have been slaves and I have been their master, therefore they are inferior and I am superior, therefore I have the right to do as I pelase with them".

While I'm, not suggesting that this is in anyway a definitive answer, it is intended to illustrate my point. It is society making conscious the evolutionary imperitives.

I agree that slavery is a repellent concept to our modern thinking but it does not mean it did not have its uses and it does not mean that religion had any hand in guiding the moral shift away from slavery towards emancipation and equality. Intellectual decompression did that, education and the development of societies that did not require a slave race to function did that.

Hivemind187

Schuhart wrote:

Are we focussing too much on one individual? Surely the point about Mengele is that he was part of a movement with an ideology that some humans were more equal than others, to quote a phrase.

And .. .um ... yes. Perhaps we are focussing on that particular fascist git a little too much.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

There is a psychiatric explanation for why Jospeh Mengele was capable of comiting the atrocities he did: He was a sociopath incapable of empathising with other humans. There is evidence to suggest this as much research into the man indicates he had a prediliction for autopsy from an early age (though this maybe construed as conjecture).

Mengele was also a Roman Catholic (not that this really makes much of a difference either way).

Mengele was not a lone wolf. There are sociopaths in every society, but the morality of the larger community prevents them from having access to a ready supply of victims, a well-equipped laboratory, and the protection of the law. He was able to do what he did because an entire society cast off traditional morality.

As for Mengele's Catholicism, my understanding is that he was raised Catholic, was a practising Catholic for a season, but rejected it in favour of another philosophy (that of National Socialism). By that token most of the posters on this board who call themselves atheists are actually Catholics, while I who call myself a Christian am actually an atheist.

lostexpectation

PDN wrote:

This is interesting. I thought the discussion might get onto vegetarianism. Of course as a Christian this is much simpler for me. If God wanted us to be vegetarians then He wouldn't have made animals out of meat.

I find it interesting that some atheists see it as ethical to eat some animals but not others. For example, I have eaten both dog meat and dolphin steaks yet a friend of mine strongly argued that eating dogs was wrong, not just on sentimental grounds, but ethical grounds. This cannot be an issue of sentinence because I understand that dolphins are considered to be more intelligent than your average mutt.

your sentence is incorrect...

I find it interesting that some people (athiest christian and miscellaneous) see it as ethical to eat some animals but not others.

Tar.Aldarion

Nearly all people do, do you mind eating human?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hufu

lostexpectation

PDN wrote:

I find the empathy thesis interesting, because it appears to say there is no such thing as morality per se. If Mengele had no empathy towards the gypsy children he experimented on, then would that mean that his actions were not, in fact, immoral?

morality is just an abstract concept, its not definite from any point of view he actions go way beyond 'immoral'.

PDN

lostexpectation wrote:

your sentence is incorrect...

I find it interesting that some people (athiest christian and miscellaneous) see it as ethical to eat some animals but not others.

My sentence is correct. Some of my friends are atheists, and they see it as ethical to eat to eat some animals but not others. Therefore it is perfectly correct to say "I find it interesting that some atheists see it as ethical to eat some animals but not others".

Your sentence is correct too, by the way. But since the two sentences are neither exclusive nor contradictory that obviously has no bearing on the correctness of my sentence.

Do they teach anything in schools nowadays?

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Mengele was not a lone wolf. There are sociopaths in every society, but the morality of the larger community prevents them from having access to a ready supply of victims, a well-equipped laboratory, and the protection of the law. He was able to do what he did because an entire society cast off traditional morality.

As for Mengele's Catholicism, my understanding is that he was raised Catholic, was a practising Catholic for a season, but rejected it in favour of another philosophy (that of National Socialism). By that token most of the posters on this board who call themselves atheists are actually Catholics, while I who call myself a Christian am actually an atheist.

Well, I dont mean to suggest that Mengele was a lone wolf, far from it.

As for his catholocism, he remained a catholic his whole life, whether he believed any of it or not is a matter of debate.

However, I disagree that it is "morality" of a society that prevents a person from doing these things. It is not a "moral" that stops a tribe from eating its young as a matter of faith but a notion of common sense and survival instinct. The same instinct that says "to kill our own is ot good" because it reduces the chances of a families genes being passed on, leading to an unsucessful species and extinction.

Implying that religion or philosophy have any more baring than as an explanation for why things are what they are or why we do the things we do would seem to go against the established facts of evolution.

As for what people label themselves ... well ... I consider myself to be a neo-radical-ultra-libertarian ... but only on Wednesdays.

PDN

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Nearly all people do, do you mind eating human?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hufu

Have you read In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex by Nathaniel Philbrick? It is the true story that inspired Herman Melville to write Moby Dick. A whaler was rammed by a sperm whale, leaving the crew to drift for weeks in life boats, eventually eating their dead comrades to stay alive. Apparently the liver was the easiest part to serve as the first course, but they ended up sucking the marrow from the bones. While unpleasant, the act of cannibalism seems eminently sensible to me rather than dying of starvation. Ethical slam dunk.

More problematic ethically (and the reason why I mention the Essex, rather than the rugby team whose plane crashed in the Andes) was that on one of the lifeboats they ran out of dead bodies. So one of the crew suggested they draw straws and the guy with the short straw should be shot and eaten by the others. The survivors maintained that the sailor who made the initial suggestion was also the one who drew the short straw, but that sounds too neat to my suspicious mind. It's like blaming the dead driver for a train crash so as not to ruin the life or reputation of anyone still alive. Interestingly, the sailor concerned was a nephew of the ship's captain, who eventually made it back to Nantucket. The captain had to visit the boy's parents and tell them that not only was their son dead, but that he had in fact eaten him after he was deliberately killed for food. I must admit that would cause me a few ethical concerns!

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Have you read In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex by Nathaniel Philbrick? It is the true story that inspired Herman Melville to write Moby Dick. A whaler was rammed by a sperm whale, leaving the crew to drift for weeks in life boats, eventually eating their dead comrades to stay alive. Apparently the liver was the easiest part to serve as the first course, but they ended up sucking the marrow from the bones. While unpleasant, the act of cannibalism seems eminently sensible to me rather than dying of starvation. Ethical slam dunk.

More problematic ethically (and the reason why I mention the Essex, rather than the rugby team whose plane crashed in the Andes) was that on one of the lifeboats they ran out of dead bodies. So one of the crew suggested they draw straws and the guy with the short straw should be shot and eaten by the others. The survivors maintained that the sailor who made the initial suggestion was also the one who drew the short straw, but that sounds too neat to my suspicious mind. It's like blaming the dead driver for a train crash so as not to ruin the life or reputation of anyone still alive. Interestingly, the sailor concerned was a nephew of the ship's captain, who eventually made it back to Nantucket. The captain had to visit the boy's parents and tell them that not only was their son dead, but that he had in fact eaten him after he was deliberately killed for food. I must admit that would cause me a few ethical concerns!

Ethical concerns or concerns about how you would explain it later, how you would feel about it emotionally and the perception you believe other would have of you?

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

Ethical concerns or concerns about how you would explain it later, how you would feel about it emotionally and the perception you believe other would have of you?

The ethical concerns would be about eating someone who was deliberately killed for food.

The emotional coping & the concerns about the perception others would have is probably not ethical. That raises another question. How much of our morality and ethics is simply conforming with the expectations of others? For example, I spoke recently with several medical doctors in my church congregation. They don't speak of their faith to their patients, not because they actually believe it is unethical, but because their bosses have told them it is unethical and they don't want to lose their jobs.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The ethical concerns would be about eating someone who was deliberately killed for food.

I would imagine that as a Christian you would think it would be far better to just die, after all you do that eternal happiness waiting for you.

It would be more challenging to an atheists (or someone who didn't really believe in an after life), though I would hope that in the situation I wouldn't do it.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

I would imagine that as a Christian you would think it would be far better to just die, after all you do that eternal happiness waiting for you.

It would be more challenging to an atheists (or someone who didn't really believe in an after life), though I would hope that in the situation I wouldn't do it.

Ah, but as an evangelist, I'm thinking of all those people who would come to faith and eternal life if I lived to preach another day.

Actually this is an old discussion, the apostle Paul already did the "Should I stay or should I go?" dilemma in his epistle to the Philippians.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

You are equating a human being to a fox here. For some people, empathising with an animal is very easy, for others they consider them to be food or a source of fun. In a certain sense the latter person is a more sociopathic person, this does not mean that they are disfunctional however, only that they are less inclined to naturally empathise with the objectified creature.

Hmm...I take it you don't see any reason to explain why one shouldn't equate a human to a fox.

Hivemind187 wrote:

As for the issue of slavery. Its a slightly more tricky question in that it is human nature to exploit others if possible, it means that while they are doing the work you can devote more energy into growing larger and reproducing more - a simple evolutionary crane. The arguments that the enslaved people (usually the black man) were inferiror or somehow "sub-human" is little more than cognitive rationalisation of a social situation. Along the line of "all black men I have ever seen have been slaves and I have been their master, therefore they are inferior and I am superior, therefore I have the right to do as I pelase with them".

Racism is exactly the same argument as you apply to animals, but with the arbitrary boundary drawn in a different place. So this is the same old "human the way I define human" argument. You and the racist define "human" differently - your definition includes black men, theirs excludes them.

By what rationale is your argument better than theirs? And by what rationale exactly are humans deserving of better treatment than animals? If possible, give a rationale that makes it impossible to defend racism using exactly the same rationale.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Ah, but as an evangelist, I'm thinking of all those people who would come to faith and eternal life if I lived to preach another day.

Tsk tsk - pride! What about all the people you're putting off?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

How much of our morality and ethics is simply conforming with the expectations of others?

I think that’s an interesting point. Going back to the whaling ship, let’s leave aside the massive coincidence at the person who drew the short straw being the one who suggested the voluntary cannibalism and just accept the story at face value.

Is volunteering to be killed and eaten to save the life of others any different to any other situation where someone might sacrifice themselves for others? How does it differ in principle from the example, say, of a fireman dying while bringing people to safety? Yet I think you are right that we all still have some pause over the question of volunteering to be eaten, as if some threshold is being crossed.

PDN wrote:

They don't speak of their faith to their patients, not because they actually believe it is unethical, but because their bosses have told them it is unethical and they don't want to lose their jobs.

I’m not being obtuse but I missed the point a little here – why would it be relevant for a doctor to explain their faith to a patient?

PDN

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not being obtuse but I missed the point a little here – why would it be relevant for a doctor to explain their faith to a patient?

These doctors see people who have big problems. They believe Jesus can help meet those problems. They would like to tell the person about Jesus, but that would be 'unethical'.

What is really funny is when people come to our church and ask for prayer. Sometimes they recognise that the person praying with them for God to heal them is the doctor who treated them in hospital for the same condition.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

These doctors see people who have big problems. They believe Jesus can help meet those problems. They would like to tell the person about Jesus, but that would be 'unethical'.

What is really funny is when people come to our church and ask for prayer. Sometimes they recognise that the person praying with them for God to heal them is the doctor who treated them in hospital for the same condition.

It is a perfectly correct separation of the profession of medicine and the profession of one's religion, as well as separating the doctor's professional position of authority from the authoritativeness of their religious beliefs. Medicine is secular - Muslims should not be afraid to send their children to a Christian hospital for fear of proselytising doctors. Church for religion, hospital for medicine - in each case, you know what you're getting.

Patients are in a particularly vulnerable position vis a vis their doctors - they are unwell, in another's care, under another's athority, and cut off from their social networks. That this makes them particularly open to conversion is exactly the point - they are vulnerable, and should not be preyed upon, whether the person preying believes they are doing good or not.

Patients are entitled to request chaplaincy visits. I would leave it at that - those who seek the solace of religion can ask for it, not have it thrust down their feeding tube.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

PDN wrote:

Have you read In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex by Nathaniel Philbrick? It is the true story that inspired Herman Melville to write Moby Dick. A whaler was rammed by a sperm whale, leaving the crew to drift for weeks in life boats, eventually eating their dead comrades to stay alive. Apparently the liver was the easiest part to serve as the first course, but they ended up sucking the marrow from the bones. While unpleasant, the act of cannibalism seems eminently sensible to me rather than dying of starvation. Ethical slam dunk.

well we do experiement/train on dead people. once permissions are given.

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm...I take it you don't see any reason to explain why one shouldn't equate a human to a fox.



Racism is exactly the same argument as you apply to animals, but with the arbitrary boundary drawn in a different place. So this is the same old "human the way I define human" argument. You and the racist define "human" differently - your definition includes black men, theirs excludes them.

By what rationale is your argument better than theirs? And by what rationale exactly are humans deserving of better treatment than animals? If possible, give a rationale that makes it impossible to defend racism using exactly the same rationale.

cordially,
Scofflaw

One word.

"Genetics"

I think that just about sews up my argument. I'd like to thank the academy ...

The point is that white, black, brown blah blah blah We are all the same species. The margin of difference genetically between the entire population of blacks and the entire genome of whites is so infinitesimally small as to make virtually no difference.

The rationale for racism is part evolutionary throw back to tribalism (and can be seen between rival football clubs as fervently as the bile spewed by your average white supremacist), part psychological dysfunction and part sociological influence. It has no scientific or rational basis.

I didnt say you shouldn't compare foxes and humans, I implied that it was a slightly dodgy position. And as it happens I personally find fox hunting abhorrent but I dont object to the eating of meat. There is survival issues and their are sporting issues and never the twain should meet. But that is an opinion rather than a fact.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

These doctors see people who have big problems. They believe Jesus can help meet those problems. They would like to tell the person about Jesus, but that would be 'unethical'.

What is really funny is when people come to our church and ask for prayer. Sometimes they recognise that the person praying with them for God to heal them is the doctor who treated them in hospital for the same condition.

Ok, are you seriously positing this as a viable argument?

If a surgeon tells me just before he operates that he has faith that god will guide his hand I will ask for a different surgeon. One that doesnt need to be shown how to do his job.

This, I feel, is an argument deserving its own thread though and is getting away from the OP.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

Patients are entitled to request chaplaincy visits. I would leave it at that - those who seek the solace of religion can ask for it, not have it thrust down their feeding tube.

Perhaps inevitably, I'd have to agree with this. Do hospitals not ask after people's religion in any event? Presumably some account has to be taken of an individual's beliefs in case some procedure is performed that conflicts with their ethics or, ultimately, if they die and there's a need to know what rites they might want performed?

But I'd agree that a doctor 'freelancing' personal beliefs into the equation is out of order when patients can presumably seek a visit from a clergyman or equivalent of their own faith.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

Ok, are you seriously positing this as a viable argument?

If a surgeon tells me just before he operates that he has faith that god will guide his hand I will ask for a different surgeon. One that doesnt need to be shown how to do his job.

This, I feel, is an argument deserving its own thread though and is getting away from the OP.

No, this is not an argument. I actually agree with the hospital's policy and told these doctors so.

My point was that these doctors obeyed a code of ethics, not because they personally believed it but in order to keep other people happy - something that occurs in many areas of life. Sorry if my ill-chosen example muddied the waters by introducing a distraction into this excellent discussion.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

One word.

"Genetics"

I think that just about sews up my argument. I'd like to thank the academy ...

The point is that white, black, brown blah blah blah We are all the same species. The margin of difference genetically between the entire population of blacks and the entire genome of whites is so infinitesimally small as to make virtually no difference.

OK, so that's your particular arbitrary dividing line. Someone else could argue that 2% difference in genetic divergence is "so infinitesimally small as to make virtually no difference", another could argue that having genes for black skin is not "so infinitesimally small as to make virtually no difference". Why is your position better (less arbitrary) than theirs?

It's worth remembering that "species" is a very fuzzy concept.

Hivemind187 wrote:

The rationale for racism is part evolutionary throw back to tribalism (and can be seen between rival football clubs as fervently as the bile spewed by your average white supremacist), part psychological dysfunction and part sociological influence. It has no scientific or rational basis.

The rationale for drawing a boundary around the human race when we are considering what organisms should have rights similarly has no scientific or rational basis - the underlying rationale is exactly the same as you have described for racism.

The boundaries of 'species' may have a scientific or rational basis, but using them as a dividing line for ethical questions does not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

OK, so that's your particular arbitrary dividing line. Someone else could argue that 2% difference in genetic divergence is "so infinitesimally small as to make virtually no difference", another could argue that having genes for black skin is not "so infinitesimally small as to make virtually no difference". Why is your position better (less arbitrary) than theirs?

It's worth remembering that "species" is a very fuzzy concept.



The rationale for drawing a boundary around the human race when we are considering what organisms should have rights similarly has no scientific or rational basis - the underlying rationale is exactly the same as you have described for racism.

The boundaries of 'species' may have a scientific or rational basis, but using them as a dividing line for ethical questions does not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nothing arbitrary about it. It is simply a fact. Species is generally defined by creatures which can interbreed and choose to do so (there are aberrations).

I would like to know where you get the 2% stat by the way. Thats awful specific.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

Nothing arbitrary about it. It is simply a fact. Species is generally defined by creatures which can interbreed and choose to do so (there are aberrations).

You are awfully fond of the assertion that rather complex things are 'simply facts'. Species is an arbitrary dividing line, with several different conflicting definitions, each of which fail in different ways (clines, fertile hybrids esp. in plants)

Hivemind187 wrote:

I would like to know where you get the 2% stat by the way. Thats awful specific.

I was thinking of the recent 'ape rights' case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

You are awfully fond of the assertion that rather complex things are 'simply facts'. Species is an arbitrary dividing line, with several different conflicting definitions, each of which fail in different ways (clines, fertile hybrids esp. in plants)



I was thinking of the recent 'ape rights' case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So apes and black people are essentially the same thing then?

I'm noting an uncomfortably racial bias in your arguments.

And genetics is relatively simple in concept, the science is complex, but the concept is elegant and simple.

As for fertile hybrids, as I said, there are aberrations.

I drew a line which is a natural boundary, where, might I ask, are you drawing the line?

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

So apes and black people are essentially the same thing then?

I'm noting an uncomfortably racial bias in your arguments.

No. These are arguments, not opinions. My point is that if your dividing line, which you think is "natural", is actually arbitrary, then the suspicion is that you have drawn it so as to include "people you feel comfortable claiming as fellow humans", which is exactly what the racist does.

If the dividing line is arbitrary, then one person can draw it to include apes, another to include all life, a third to include only H. sapiens. None of these is any more objective than the rest. Some reflect real, and objective, boundaries, but that does not thereby make them suitable for determining a moral boundary.

As to the question of racism, I am of course mildly racist (strongly biased in favour of Jews, for example) - have you tried the Harvard implicit association tests?

Hivemind187 wrote:

And genetics is relatively simple in concept, the science is complex, but the concept is elegant and simple.

As for fertile hybrids, as I said, there are aberrations.

The basis of determining species is not genetics, though. Taxonomy remains a rather a dull matter of physiology and physical characteristics.

Hivemind187 wrote:

I drew a line which is a natural boundary, where, might I ask, are you drawing the line?

Currently I don't - or at least I draw it around all life. What I'd like to see is you explain what "natural" means in your sentence...? To me, "natural" is one of those markers, like "it's only commonsense", which indicate a hidden prejudice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

These doctors see people who have big problems. They believe Jesus can help meet those problems. They would like to tell the person about Jesus, but that would be 'unethical'.

What is really funny is when people come to our church and ask for prayer. Sometimes they recognise that the person praying with them for God to heal them is the doctor who treated them in hospital for the same condition.

Tricky one. Prayer does help some people, it alienates others. The last time I was in Hospital I got two visits from Chaplains, both very nice and friendly, and I had to explain quite awkardly that I was an atheist and I didn't do the prayer thing. Cue some very awkard silences - it was stressful especially when one is already sick and this people do mean well.

JC 2K3

Scofflaw wrote:

Indeed - and while we might consider it unethical to take bribes, or shoot people for fun, it is perfectly possible for someone to takes bribes and shoot people for fun, because it is "easier and workable" for them. Fortunately for them, this would be ethical under your system.

Your personal decision that doing as you please works for you is not a moral or ethical decision, but a pragmatic one. It is of no use in determining whether the actions of others are immoral, or whether anything should have rights.

On the other hand, it illustrates very well the problem of using arbitrary boundaries, for which I thank you...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pragmatism, morality, what's the difference?

Everyone uses arbitrary boundaries when determining the morality of complex situations.

Tim Robbins wrote:

* Say if our species divereged and a new species Homo Sapien + was bigger, stronger and more intelligent than Homo Sapien, is it right that they eat us when they know they could just go veggie? What argument would we have if we have been eating everything underneath us prior to the arrival of Homo Sapien + - none.

That's an unfeasable situation and therefore does not affect my morality.

Tim Robbins wrote:

* We don't need to eat everything "underneath" us. We know what nutrients we need to remain healthy and we know we don't have to eat meat to get them. We choose to eat it.

True, but that's not an argument.

Tim Robbins wrote:

* Farmed animals emit green house gases, if one is to give out about SUVs, one could make the same argument meat eating.

That's an argument for animal extermination

Tim Robbins wrote:

* Several farmed animals are treated appaulingly. No need to elaborate here. Would we like homo species +, bred us specifically to eat and kept us alive in little cages until we were ready for the chop.

Child and slave labour still exists and there doesn't seem to be a strong anti-slave labour produced products movement. Animals being treated unecessarily cruelly isn't ideal, but to me it's a lesser of two evils and we should be concentrating on ensuring human rights are fulfilled first.

Tim Robbins wrote:

* Animals are cousins, they are sentient, living feeling creatures. No sane person would think there is not a difference between sawing a tree and sawing a cow's leg when both are alive. However, culturally we accept eating meat in much the same we culturally just accept religion or faith without questioning is it right?

Culturally it is believed to be "insane" to compare harming a plant to harming an animal.

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote:

That's an unfeasable situation and therefore does not affect my morality.

It's a thought experiment, you can't examine your philosophy without thought experiments. You are simply avoiding self analysis. Furthermore it's not unfeasable if you accept evolution theory.

True, but that's not an argument.

Of course it's an argument.

That's an argument for animal extermination

No it's an argument for not breeding certain animal excessively.

Child and slave labour still exists and there doesn't seem to be a strong anti-slave labour produced products movement. Animals being treated unecessarily cruelly isn't ideal, but to me it's a lesser of two evils and we should be concentrating on ensuring human rights are fulfilled first.

Why? What is your reason for anything? Is everything just deontological or do you have any logical argument for any of your conclusions?

Culturally it is believed to be "insane" to compare harming a plant to harming an animal.

Forget about culture, do you think saw a Cow's leg is the same as sawing a tree when both are still alive?

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's a thought experiment, you can't examine your philosophy without thought experiments. You are simply avoiding self analysis. Furthermore it's not unfeasable if you accept evolution theory.

Unfeasable in my lifetime, and perhaps unfeasable if we consider that us humans, with all our numbers and intelligence, would not let a superior species emerge.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Of course it's an argument.

It's an argument for not needing to eat them, not not eating them.

Tim Robbins wrote:

No it's an argument for not breeding certain animal excessively.

Ok, so let's breed more different varieties of animals for consumption.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Why? What is your reason for anything? Is everything just deontological or do you have any logical argument for any of your conclusions?

My deontology is based on logic. What is logic to you?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Forget about culture, do you think saw a Cow's leg is the same as sawing a tree when both are still alive?

I have heard no argument to convince me otherwise.

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

No. These are arguments, not opinions. My point is that if your dividing line, which you think is "natural", is actually arbitrary, then the suspicion is that you have drawn it so as to include "people you feel comfortable claiming as fellow humans", which is exactly what the racist does.

If the dividing line is arbitrary, then one person can draw it to include apes, another to include all life, a third to include only H. sapiens. None of these is any more objective than the rest. Some reflect real, and objective, boundaries, but that does not thereby make them suitable for determining a moral boundary.

As to the question of racism, I am of course mildly racist (strongly biased in favour of Jews, for example) - have you tried the Harvard implicit association tests?



The basis of determining species is not genetics, though. Taxonomy remains a rather a dull matter of physiology and physical characteristics.



Currently I don't - or at least I draw it around all life. What I'd like to see is you explain what "natural" means in your sentence...? To me, "natural" is one of those markers, like "it's only commonsense", which indicate a hidden prejudice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm sorry but I dont agree.

Your argument suggests that evolution of phylums into separate species is irrelevant and that the natural barriers of inter species prcreation is also irrelevant.

Thats nuts. I'm sorry but it is the equivalent of saying that a wide river, wountain range or ocean does not form a natural barrier between locations.

You can draw your dividing line in what ever way you feel you can justify it, but there are better arguements for other ones. In terms of genetics and species, your argument would suggest that fish are the same as people ... while they do share a large number of genes they are sufficiently different genetically to warrant a separation.

You are comparing me to a racist because I draw the line based around genetics. Thats not racism, thats looking at the facts and saying "I am a human" and "this is a fish".

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote:

Unfeasable in my lifetime, and perhaps unfeasable if we consider that us humans, with all our numbers and intelligence, would not let a superior species emerge.

Well you are not arguing morals or ethics you are just selfish.
It seems your maxim is: "no skin of my nose", not a philosophical one of what is right and what is wrong.

It's an argument for not needing to eat them, not not eating them.

Of course it's an argument, "not eating" can easily be derived from "not needing to eat" in an appropriate context.

Ok, so let's breed more different varieties of animals for consumption.

?

My deontology is based on logic. What is logic to you?

You haven't given one logical argument yet.
You don't eat humans Humans because you don't. You eat animals because you do.
This is not logic or reason, it's just dogma with absolute no rational enquiry.
Any counter argument you just rebut with some sort "no skin of my nose" maxim. This is ignoring the essences of morals.

I have heard no argument to convince me otherwise.

This is just stupid. A cow is a sentient being and a tree is not. There's a massive difference between sawing a Cow's leg off when still alive and a sawing a tree when still alive. If you can't see that, there's no point debating with you.

Your tongue is either in your cheek, you have misunderstood the question (i.e. you think the Cow is dead or under an anaesthetic, but it's not) or you really think a Cow's pain is completely irrelevant or doesn't have sentience or pain at all - perhaps this is indicative of a low empathy rating.
I don't think we'll ever agree if it's the latter. I really don't respect people who have absolutely no sympathy at all for the pain of an animal and equate it with that of a tree.

EDIT:
I edited the last part there after some advice from Mod, it was:
Your tongue is either in your cheek, or you're just a twat (i.e. low empathy rating).

Dades

Steady there, TR.
People are allowed disagree with you.

EDIT

Um, leaving the original remark there is not an edit.

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well you are not arguing morals or ethics you are just selfish.
It seems your maxim is: "no skin of my nose", not a philosophical one of what is right and what is wrong.

So what is a "philosophical" notion of what is right and what is wrong and what is wrong with my "no skin off my nose logic"?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Of course it's an argument, "not eating" can easily be derived from "not needing to eat" in an appropriate context.

That's assuming I understand and accept the context, which I do not as you have not convinced me otherwise.

Tim Robbins wrote:

You haven't given one logical argument yet.
You don't eat humans Humans because you don't. You eat animals because you do.
This is not logic or reason, it's just dogma with absolute no rational enquiry.
Any counter argument you just rebut with some sort "no skin of my nose" maxim. This is ignoring the essences of morals.

No one defines morals. You clearly have some sort of belief system re: morality which I don't share. Empathy isn't logical, where is your logic?

Tim Robbins wrote:

This is just stupid. A cow is a sentient being and a tree is not. There's a massive difference between sawing a Cow's leg off when still alive and a sawing a tree when still alive. If you can't see that, there's no point debating with you.

Your tongue is either in your cheek, you have misunderstood the question (i.e. you think the Cow is dead or under an anaesthetic, but it's not) or you really think a Cow's pain is completely irrelevant or doesn't have sentience or pain at all - perhaps this is indicative of a low empathy rating.
I don't think we'll ever agree if it's the latter. I really don't respect people who have absolutely no sympathy at all for the pain of an animal and equate it with that of a tree.

EDIT:
I edited the last part there after some advice from Mod, it was:
Your tongue is either in your cheek, or you're just a twat (i.e. low empathy rating).

Well yes, I have a low empathy level towards animals. Your lack of respect for me is illogical. I respect you despite your beliefs as I respect Catholics and Muslims. Would you not share the same view?

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote:

So what is a "philosophical" notion of what is right and what is wrong and what is wrong with my "no skin off my nose logic"?

Because we are discussing morals, "no skin off my nose" is amoral not illogial.

That's assuming I understand and accept the context, which I do not as you have not convinced me otherwise.

I doubt I could ever convinve you, you seem to be amoral and not use reason on this issue.

No one defines morals. You clearly have some sort of belief system re: morality which I don't share. Empathy isn't logical, where is your logic?

Incorrect, Kant, Hume, McGinn, Singer several philosophers have written on moral philosophy and how why might deduce what is right and what is wrong.
It's a massive area in philosophy, the application of reason to deriving morality.

Noone is saying empathy is logical.
the argument w.r.t to empathy is it's quite hard to derive any morality if you have no or very little empathy.

Well yes, I have a low empathy level towards animals. Your lack of respect for me is illogical. I respect you despite your beliefs as I respect Catholics and Muslims. Would you not share the same view?

The Law is consistent with me. Cruelty to animals is unacceptable. Your analogy is illogical.

Dades

JC 2K3 wrote:

No one defines morals. You clearly have some sort of belief system re: morality which I don't share. Empathy isn't logical, where is your logic?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Incorrect, Kant, Hume, McGinn, Singer several philosophers have written on moral philosophy and how why might deduce what is right and what is wrong.

Tim, are you suggesting that absolute morals exist, and are not a subjective matter?

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Tim, are you suggesting that absolute morals exist, and are not a subjective matter?

I am saying logic and reason can be used in deriving morals.
As for moral absolutism, yeah things like human rights, even JC 2K3 might agree that noone should be walloped over the head with hammer and it is wrong because it is just is wrong.
However, in general morals aren't absolute and there is an element of subjectivity.

Tar.Aldarion

Because the majority of people think something, it doesn't make it objective and it most certainly does not make it right.
Not everyody used to think hitting somebody was wrong, or slavery, or etc, oin fact, quite the opposite. It is just our modern fancy that any of our morals should be absolute.
Morals are only subjective in my opinion, you can't use logic and reason that is not biased by your own mind, unless you are quite the phenomenologist.
Something perfectly logical to you is so because of your own mind, logic is just ignorance by numbers.

Hivemind187

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Because the majority of people think something, it doesn't make it objective and it most certainly does not make it right.
Not everyody used to think hitting somebody was wrong, or slavery, or etc, oin fact, quite the opposite. It is just our modern fancy that any of our morals should be absolute.
Morals are only subjective in my opinion, you can't use logic and reason that is not biased by your own mind, unless you are quite the phenomenologist.
Something perfectly logical to you is so because of your own mind, logic is just ignorance by numbers.

Posted by Tim Robbins
I am saying logic and reason can be used in deriving morals.
As for moral absolutism, yeah things like human rights, even JC 2K3 might agree that noone should be walloped over the head with hammer and it is wrong because it is just is wrong.
However, in general morals aren't absolute and there is an element of subjectivity.

In support of Tar I would clarify that the evolved morals argument I made earlier on does not necessarily mean "morals" in a cognitive sense, only in an empathetic sense.

Tim, with all due respect, "its wrong because it is just wrong" is an argument by assertion. You could use the same logic to say "god exists because he just does" - an argument many atheists have been subjected to over the years.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Tim, with all due respect, "its wrong because it is just wrong" is an argument by assertion. You could use the same logic to say "god exists because he just does" - an argument many atheists have been subjected to over the years.

A good point, clearly and concisely put. It is argument from asertion.

My argument in this debate is that one can you use reason to deduce morals and morals just aren't argument from asertion.

I was trying to think of one case of where a deduction is not necessary, not used and the moral is a case of a fundamental or an absolute i.e. an argument from asertion that is not derived from logic or reason.