Is "When Does Life Begin?" a Scientific or Moral Question? Both?

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No real argument?

Just one that has stood for 300 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

Try to defend lifestyles that were illegal until a few years ago using your logic.

All there is, is social convention and you should be the first to recognize that

Putting it bluntly you leave yourself wide open to a natural law argument against homosexuality. 

I mean are we advocates for "diversity" or not?

 

Whether a fertilized egg is a person or not is what is open to speculation.  Whether a homosexual is a person has never been open to speculation.

Edited July 22, 2019 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

The punishment for robbery and murder are agreed upon moral beliefs that society as a whole are not divided on and are not based on speculation.  Seriously, you can't see the difference?

Until a few years ago there were other things in that category of "agreed-upon beliefs that society as a whole accepted" of which you should be very aware.

Really odd to see you arguing for conservativism in these areas.

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Whether a fertilized egg is a person or not is what is open to speculation.  Whether a homosexual is a person has never been open to speculation.

Oh gosh.

Fergitabout it.

Unbelievable.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I find abortion detestable but we are not consistent if we insist life and personhood begins at conception and then act like that fact only matters when a mother intervenes to end a pregnancy. 

Intentionally killing healthy, viable life/persons is a different category of not caring.

Again, I wouldn’t say that we don’t care, I would say that there are no medical options - not for a lack of research.

[Amulek]

On 7/21/2019 at 6:25 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because the whole point of literally every single law ever written is to 'force' a group of people's personal beliefs on the people who disagree with the content of the law.

Like, a thousand times, THIS!!!

When it comes to abortion, people hold varying ideas about what is proper. And whether one supports a law against all abortion, against late-term abortions, against infanticide, or against killing babies who are one year or older, one is "forcing" one’s moral views on others.

Seriously, no attempt to protect children from killing — wherever you draw the line about what constitutes a “child” — can operate without forcing one’s moral views on others. 

 

[USU78]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh gosh.

Fergitabout it.

Unbelievable.

 

[clarkgoble]

On 7/19/2019 at 9:30 PM, 3DOP said:

Who would want to make "contraception more difficult to obtain"? Catholics who believe what the Church teaches? It seems like you are talking about Catholic health systems and professionals.

I was more thinking of Protestants - particularly conservative Evangelicals and Southern Baptists - who tended to think pushing contraception was justifying pre-marital sex particularly among teens. That same attitude is not at all uncommon in our own tradition as well. I'll confess I just don't know the Catholic position on such things within the hospital system so I can't say much there. I know Catholics have opposition as a doctrine but that it's not a position most American Catholics follow.

I think that's changed somewhat the past decade, but was extremely common before then. In recent years you've even had conservatives pushing to make pill contraception available over the counter without a prescription. I'm not sure that's wise, given the huge psychological effects it can have on some people but it is perhaps understandable. That said there are still many clinics that push the rythmn method or abstenance which I don't think is the most effective. I can undrestand having doctrinal issues with contraception but then I think that ought be made very clear in the clinic.

On 7/19/2019 at 9:30 PM, 3DOP said:

I strongly hold that it would be better to be an aborted baby than to never have lived. 

I don't know your background so forgive me if I make erroneous assumptions. From a Mormon perspective where the soul isn't created at conception, I don't think the above statement makes much sense. Further from a Mormon perspective I think it deeply problematic. That is what counts for us is mortality as a place where we are tried and build our character in a way we couldn't when we were in God's presence as eternal beings. So the worst thing is to cut off that person's probationary experience. If an abortion took place before that point (say the spontaneous miscarriages that affect most conception) then the spirit would simply go to a different pregnancy and have the opportunity of mortality there. Where abortion would be most horrific is when it took place at a time where the spirit was essentially embodied in the mortal body and then killed. So from what I take to be a Mormon perspective infanticize, which would include abortion at this point, is the worst sin because you're cutting off that probation in a way that killing an adult doesn't. 

This seems a place where the conception of birth and the spirit leads to very different conclusions. I'd add, that since for Mormons (I'm taking that you are Catholic) every spirit will get a chance to live, even if only briefly. While only a folk doctrine, there is a tradition that only the most righteous spirits who didn't need mortality as much, end up in bodies that die as children. (Mormons believe that those who die before age 8 are automatically saved) There are a lot of assumptions in that falk doctrine that many Mormons might disagree with on theological grounds though. So, for instance, Mormon thinkers who embrace open theism tend to think God doesn't have foreknowledge of particulars. Thus he couldn't know which spirit will go with what future but could only make a flawed prediction. Most Mormons aren't open theists, but a surprising number of those who intellectually think through theology are. An other qualm some might have is the fairness of that system.

 

 

 

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Until a few years ago there were other things in that category of "agreed-upon beliefs that society as a whole accepted" of which you should be very aware.

Really odd to see you arguing for conservativism in these areas.

 

I understand exactly what you are talking about.  I am not saying that agreed upon values are always right.  I am saying that there is no agreement at all on when a fertilized egg becomes a person.  UNTIL there is agreement on that, then deciding whether abortion should or should not be legal is when agreed upon values becomes a matter of law.  

It is like if a group believed that a tree would eventually become a person.  (They do have spirits and maybe those spirits grow to become premarital people for example). You can't start passing laws about trees being murdered until there is some way that everyone can agree upon that proves they will become a person some day.  You may be able to pass laws to preserve trees for other reasons, but you can't pass a law based on something that at this point is totally just an opinion with zero evidence.

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

Intentionally killing healthy, viable life/persons is a different category of not caring.

Again, I wouldn’t say that we don’t care, I would say that there are no medical options - not for a lack of research.

Agreed that there is a difference but it is one of degree. Killing someone is more vile then not caring if another lives or dies.

Compare the amount of research thrown towards cancer, HIV, diabetes, and other things that kill to how much is put on preventing miscarriages. If all life is equal then miscarriages are a greater killer then all of them. The disproportionate funding shows we do not treat these miscarriages as people or we would be intently seeking solutions.

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, USU78 said:

 

Exactly 

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

I understand exactly what you are talking about.  I am not saying that agreed upon values are always right.  I am saying that there is no agreement at all on when a fertilized egg becomes a person.  UNTIL there is agreement on that, then deciding whether abortion should or should not be legal is when agreed upon values becomes a matter of law.  

It is like if a group believed that a tree would eventually become a person.  (They do have spirits and maybe those spirits grow to become premarital people for example). You can't start passing laws about trees being murdered until there is some way that everyone can agree upon that proves they will become a person some day.  You may be able to pass laws to preserve trees for other reasons, but you can't pass a law based on something that at this point is totally just an opinion with zero evidence.

What is your scientific evidence murder is wrong?

You are totally missing the issue.

There is no point in this discussion 

Edited July 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Agreed that there is a difference but it is one of degree. Killing someone is more vile then not caring if another lives or dies.

Compare the amount of research thrown towards cancer, HIV, diabetes, and other things that kill to how much is put on preventing miscarriages. If all life is equal then miscarriages are a greater killer then all of them. The disproportionate funding shows we do not treat these miscarriages as people or we would be intently seeking solutions.

I'm not sure that's a good argument since the nature of research typically entails more research in areas where more money can be made. So lots of research on skin care and the like and not as much in other areas that could really use the research. 

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

I understand exactly what you are talking about.  I am not saying that agreed upon values are always right.  I am saying that there is no agreement at all on when a fertilized egg becomes a person.  UNTIL there is agreement on that, then deciding whether abortion should or should not be legal is when agreed upon values becomes a matter of law. 

I think law is somewhat beside the point since there the issue is the majority forcing their views upon the minority regardless of what is right. I think the deeper problem is norms vs. laws. There's lots of things we have strong social norms against but which are legal - like adultery. I think what some fear is that these agreed upon social norms are themselves breaking down in significant ways.

Again though with respect to when personhood happens, I'd simply note that most people don't really have particularly thought out views here. To the degree they do they're typically just adopting the views of their political peers. So one would expect in New York City and San Francisco people to believe in very liberal conceptions of personhood - perhaps well into the 3rd trimester. In the midwest and south you'd expect people to be much more sympathetic to personhood in terms of ethical value being well into the 1st trimester. I'm not sure that reflects people really thinking through the issue or the like.

I also don't think most laws reflect societal consensus. Most people aren't really aware of what laws legislators are passing nor do the laws necessarily reflect majority views even when enacted. It's a problem of complexity if nothing else. It's not at all uncommon for people who are well versed on the issues to think legislators do a horrible job with the issues. After all even the lawmakers are frequently pretty ignorant on the issues they're voting for.

Which is a long way of saying I don't think consensus is a good way of thinking through lawmaking.

Edited July 22, 2019 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Agreed that there is a difference but it is one of degree. Killing someone is more vile then not caring if another lives or dies.

To accuse those who oppose abortion of being hypocrites and “not caring if another lives or dies”, is not fair.

They obviously care about these lives or they wouldn’t be opposed to killing them (unless you also subscribe to the male power conspiracy theory).   Are they going to have the same reaction to a miscarriage as they would to a spontaneous death of a child they have bonded with?  Of course not! It is not that they don’t care about that life, it is that they don’t have the same emotional/hormonal (oxytocin) bond to it.

The reason more energy is placed into preventing abortion then preventing miscarriage is because 1) abortion is much more vile (as you have acknowledged), and 2) because one has a known solution and the other doesn’t. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The disproportionate funding shows we do not treat these miscarriages as people or we would be intently seeking solutions.

That is a false dichotomy.  The disproportionate funding could also suggest that one has a hypothetical cure with no moral/ethical dilemmas, the other - not so much.

Also, there has always been disproportionate funding for treatment of disease rather than prevention, even though prevention is by far the better solution to our health care problems.

Its all about money

Edited July 22, 2019 by pogi

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What is your scientific evidence murder is wrong?

You are totally missing the issue.

There is no point in this discussion 

The scientific evidence is a dead body.  

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

The scientific evidence is a dead body.  

Uh sure.

Omigosh. Ok that clinches it. No need to carry this further 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I too was mostly talking about early miscarriages.  Again, the vast majority of them are the result of genetic defects.  If you could find a way to prevent harmful genetic mutations, you’d be a bazillionare and would be responsible for preventing unwanted miscarriages, but you’d also be responsible for ending genetic diseases all together!  There is every financial and moral motivation to find a prevention against genetic defects - so you can’t say we don’t care, it’s that we don’t have any answers, at least ones that don’t carry significant moral implications.  Once you start messing with human genes, people have serious problems with it...as one Chinese scientist recently found out.  I assume you know what I am talking about.

They are doing genetic research but most of it is aimed at fetuses that are already genetically viable.

That Chinese Doctor was an unethical quack. He lied to set up the study, submitted false test results to hide what he was doing, lied about his research, and is basically a gloryhound. There is also a strong suspicion that the concocted HIV immunity was not the real reason. A similar gene alteration in mice improved cognition. 

Genetic research is important and should be studied and we might one day have the ability to improve human disease resistance and maybe even create stronger, faster, smarter, happier humans. Genetic manipulation still suffers from the tarnished image of the Nazi’s idiotic attempt at a eugenics program and others like it but enhancement is dangerous. I suspect the danger is less from things like Khan from Star Trek, the creations in Blade Runner, or the enhanced humans of Gattaca. It is more likely to create humans that are meant to be superhuman but are instead flawed. Not in an arch villain way but in a “these superhumans suffer” kind of way.

Humans have almost the same genetic structure already and genotype differences are limited. Phenotype (environment) influences our differences as well and I suspect way beyond genotype. I also suspect that a Spirit is more powerful then both but I do not suspect most to take that idea seriously.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

The scientific evidence is a dead body.  

But some people do deserve to die.

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

The scientific evidence is a dead body.  

More or less what he is getting at is that ethics can't be established as scientific. Even when you read books or articles attempting to deal with ethics from a scientific perspective, say Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, all he can really establish is evolutionary reasons for why certain values make sense. However there clearly are evolutionary instincts that we see as wrong. So evolution can't ground ethics. Likewise if you try to look scientifically at what makes people happy (say as some sociologists attempt to do) it falls prey to the problem that some things that make people happy we see as wrong. We view as praiseworthy, for instance, a parent who neglects their happiness if it allows their children to survive. Such sacrifice is almost always valorized. Simultaneously we see someone who might be happy in an opiate haze as not flourishing the way they should. This means it's not obvious that happiness is the measure of ethics. (People are deeply skeptical of an utilitarian calculus for ethics)

So when someone raises science with regards to ethics it's more or less just acknowledging that it can't be done. Even the positivists back in the early 20th century recognized this. To them ethics was like music. Not something true or false. However while some people are fine with ethics being preference or aesthetics it seems also true that most people think of ethical claims as being true or false. There's an instinctual belief in moral realism. The epistemological problem is deciding how on earth to adjudicate ethical disagreements when there's no scientific test to establish what is true.

One popular view - one ironically shared by you and Mark I suspect - is that it's merely an issue of preference and reaching through discussion a kind of agreement. Your criticism of abortion views more or less reduces down to "there is no real consensus." The implication you take from that is that therefore there is no answer. Mark has a somewhat similar position in that he doesn't think ethics can be verified in any strong sense. I assume he takes a Rorty like position here where it's through discussion and compromise we come to a shared view. That is I assume he adopts something like Rorty's notion of solidarity. (My apologies Mark if I have you wrong here)

I'll confess that to the degree I dare say I understand Rorty I find his politicization of ethics problematic. That is there's a sense in which conversation is a working out of political differences. However politics is also the classic arena of a will to power kind of engagement. (As I said, most laws really don't reflect the majority views - in practice they more often reflect the desires of powerful elites) While Rorty clearly doesn't approve of power politics in the ethical arena, I'm not sure how one can avoid such things. If there is no reality which we're seeking moral clarity for, then it's hard to avoid a Nietzschean view of power. (IMO)

Edited July 22, 2019 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

But some people do deserve to die.

J.R.R. Tolkien > Quotes > Quotable Quote (from the film)

“Frodo: 'It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance.'

Gandalf: 'Pity? Twas pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play in it, for good or evil.  Before this is over, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.'

Frodo: 'I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.'

Gandalf: 'So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides that of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.”

Edited July 22, 2019 by smac97

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

More or less what he is getting at is that ethics can't be established as scientific. Even when you read books or articles attempting to deal with ethics from a scientific perspective, say Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, all he can really establish is evolutionary reasons for why certain values make sense. However there clearly are evolutionary instincts that we see as wrong. So evolution can't ground ethics. Likewise if you try to look scientifically at what makes people happy (say as some sociologists attempt to do) it falls prey to the problem that some things that make people happy we see as wrong. We view as praiseworthy, for instance, a parent who neglects their happiness if it allows their children to survive. Such sacrifice is almost always valorized. Simultaneously we see someone who might be happy in an opiate haze as not flourishing the way they should. This means it's not obvious that happiness is the measure of ethics. (People are deeply skeptical of an utilitarian calculus for ethics)

So when someone raises science with regards to ethics it's more or less just acknowledging that it can't be done. Even the positivists back in the early 20th century recognized this. To them ethics was like music. Not something true or false. However while some people are fine with ethics being preference or aesthetics it seems also true that most people think of ethical claims as being true or false. There's an instinctual belief in moral realism. The epistemological problem is deciding how on earth to adjudicate ethical disagreements when there's no scientific test to establish what is true.

One popular view - one ironically shared by you and Mark I suspect - is that it's merely an issue of preference and reaching through discussion a kind of agreement. Your criticism of abortion views more or less reduces down to "there is no real consensus." The implication you take from that is that therefore there is no answer. Mark has a somewhat similar position in that he doesn't think ethics can be verified in any strong sense. I assume he takes a Rorty like position here where it's through discussion and compromise we come to a shared view. That is I assume he adopts something like Rorty's notion of solidarity. (My apologies Mark if I have you wrong here)

I'll confess that to the degree I dare say I understand Rorty I find his politicization of ethics problematic. That is there's a sense in which conversation is a working out of political differences. However politics is also the classic arena of a will to power kind of engagement. (As I said, most laws really don't reflect the majority views - in practice they more often reflect the desires of powerful elites) While Rorty clearly doesn't approve of power politics in the ethical arena, I'm not sure how one can avoid such things. If there is no reality which we're seeking moral clarity for, then it's hard to avoid a Nietzschean view of power. (IMO)

While I agree mostly ethics are also pretty fixed. It is just interpretations of them and how to deal with clashing ethics that causes problems. Most cultures and times had their pet virtues they elevated to excess and others they moved to the back burner. There is no new ethical imperative we will suddenly decide is better unless that imperative is a reworking of how our general ethics should be applied. Everyone agrees killing is wrong but cultures have other ethics that supersede it in certain cases like justice or survival or some future good or loyalty to the tribe or state or family.

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

J.R.R. Tolkien > Quotes > Quotable Quote

“Frodo: 'It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance.'

Gandalf: 'Pity? Twas pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.'

Frodo: 'I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.'

Gandalf: 'So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides that of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.”

I am not morally opposed to capital punishment or killing in war or in self defense or even in vengeance in some cases. I just hope I never have to make that call but there are things I believe I could kill for.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am not morally opposed to capital punishment or killing in war or in self defense or even in vengeance in some cases. I just hope I never have to make that call but there are things I believe I could kill for.

Yes, me too.  I truly hope I never have to take a human life.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

While I agree mostly ethics are also pretty fixed. It is just interpretations of them and how to deal with clashing ethics that causes problems. Most cultures and times had their pet virtues they elevated to excess and others they moved to the back burner. There is no new ethical imperative we will suddenly decide is better unless that imperative is a reworking of how our general ethics should be applied. Everyone agrees killing is wrong but cultures have other ethics that supersede it in certain cases like justice or survival or some future good or loyalty to the tribe or state or family.

Everyone agrees killing is wrong but everyone also has exceptions. Where those exceptions take place varies. One argument is that one should adopt the most universalizing form of ethical rules. But it's far from clear that is what we should do. I think it's more than just a matter of interpretations but rather that typically what people are doing in ethical reasoning is extending principles and rejecting exceptions. However the basis upon which they do that typically seems problematic. 

It's that rationality of what to extend and what to except that seems the most problem. We might agree that ethical progress is reducing the category of "other." So slavery becomes seen as unethical because those who were once treated as "other" and open to legitimized abuse now are seen as "same" and thus given the same ethical demands. However that doesn't happen universally and it's in the exceptions that things get tricky.

In any case, the basic problem is that there is no obvious way to ground ethics. Attempts to do so, such as Utilitarianism in the 19th through early 20th century or variants of Kantianism in the late 20th century themselves still have problematic grounds. Even if one adopts a more Rorty account of ethics and politics through agreement it doesn't follow that one is correct. We frequently agree incorrectly after all. It seems fair for the skeptic to look at agreement and simply distrust it. I think it rather useful to follow through the reasoning of the skeptic and wonder if we can reply to them.

Edited July 22, 2019 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Mark has a somewhat similar position in that he doesn't think ethics can be verified in any strong sense. I assume he takes a Rorty like position here where it's through discussion and compromise we come to a shared view. That is I assume he adopts something like Rorty's notion of solidarity. (My apologies Mark if I have you wrong here)

Well, yes in fact you do.

 I think that ethics can be made certain through the guidance of the spirit.

 I do not believe we come to a shared view via compromise but by Common understanding in some cases, because we are all led by the Light of Christ and the spirit.

 The basis on which I agree with Rorty, is the notion that goes back to Hume, and Wittgenstein that science and religion are essentially different language games, and never the twain shall meet.

One does not make ethical decisions based on scientific evidence.

 For me that is where the similarity with Rorty ends. 

BECAUSE it is impossible to make ethical decisions based on science, we base them on feelings which is a perfectly rational process since feelings are part of rationality itself.

And that process can and does include the Holy Spirit speaking to our hearts.

 I am much closer to Wittgenstein's mysticism than I am to Rorty's solidarity.

I do not believe in contingency of the self which is ultimately crucial to Rorty's idea of solidarity. I think he contradicts himself in speaking of Ironists while holding his position of full contingency of the self an then claiming that Ironists can somehow escape it

Edit: addition- Christopher Hitchens, atheist, commenting on the conscience as a "Daemon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQgbi56FFZY

As far as I am concerned you can call it "The Unconscious" since all these are names which are undefinable anyway

That I choose to call it "The Spirit" does not change the purpose of the concept.  It is an inner feeling/voice/sensation/experience.  Call it what you will.

A rose by any other name.... 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Everyone agrees killing is wrong but everyone also has exceptions. Where those exceptions take place varies. One argument is that one should adopt the most universalizing form of ethical rules. But it's far from clear that is what we should do. I think it's more than just a matter of interpretations but rather that typically what people are doing in ethical reasoning is extending principles and rejecting exceptions. However the basis upon which they do that typically seems problematic. 

It's that rationality of what to extend and what to except that seems the most problem. We might agree that ethical progress is reducing the category of "other." So slavery becomes seen as unethical because those who were once treated as "other" and open to legitimized abuse now are seen as "same" and thus given the same ethical demands. However that doesn't happen universally and it's in the exceptions that things get tricky.

In any case, the basic problem is that there is no obvious way to ground ethics. Attempts to do so, such as Utilitarianism in the 19th through early 20th century or variants of Kantianism in the late 20th century themselves still have problematic grounds. Even if one adopts a more Rorty account of ethics and politics through agreement it doesn't follow that one is correct. We frequently agree incorrectly after all. It seems fair for the skeptic to look at agreement and simply distrust it. I think it rather useful to follow through the reasoning of the skeptic and wonder if we can reply to them.

I remember as a missionary having to teach a family from Albania that revenge killings were wrong. They seem to think that it was OK to kill people who had insulted their honor. (and we had to talk a member of a family out of going out and killing someone).