Atheists, Ethics & Medical Experimentation

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.