|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 21, 2007 13:04:16 GMT -5
I think that's exactly how a lot of people think. You tend to have more empathy for something that is similar to yourself. Some people extend moral consideration based on the look of the animal. Personally, I don't. It's not really a factor for me how much the being looks like a human. It's the cognitive status: the mind, as well as the capacity to suffer. It's not that I don't think we ought to ignore any interests of the fetus. It can eventually experience pain; when it does, it deserves moral consideration, but not before. But even then, there are perfectly valid reasons to kill it anyway, even if it causes pain to it, because the hazards of pregnancy are very serious for the mother, and she has a far more mature cognitive status and can suffer more. I give very little value to early fetuses, embryos, and zygotes before that. They have very immature cognition. I order organisms based on their capacity to think, feel. Personally, I think no fetus at any stage is worth the same moral consideration I would give to a 5, 10, 15, 60 year old, unless there were extreme circumstances. They have less to lose, they are less aware of what's going on, have far fewer, more limited preferences to thwart. I don't think abortion should be outlawed at any stage completely, as I believe it should be up to the mother and the doctor. The idea of mothers running around getting late term abortions is a myth anyway. A very small group do, and often, it's for good reason. I especially think abortions should be allowed late term for euthanasia purposes if necessary. Humans, I see them, are special because of their higher level cognition and ability to suffer. However, not all humans have these characteristics, either because they have not developed a cognitive status that allows it or because they were born defective or because something happened to reduce them to a lesser state. My ethics is based off of the actual characteristics of existent beings. If a being has the characteristic, its value is increased. If it lacks it, it is diminished respectively. Humans are inherently no more worthy of moral consideration than any hypothetical animal of equal intelligence, if it existed, because the fundamental basis for moral worth isn't based on the species, but the characteristics of the organism, which may or may not be present. A baby born with only a brain stem is a human, just as a 15 year old is, but it would be absurd to consider the anacephalic infant (a baby born with only a brain stem) a person and give it greater intrinsic moral consideration than a fully functional bonobo chimpanzee. I would rather save the life of the Chimp than the severely mentally impaired infant which is less functional than the Chimp. For humans who are on or less than the level of another non-human animal, there's really no intrinsic reason to treat it special just because it's human. It's just a hang-up society has because of Judeo-Christian morality and evolutionary group-morality. So, basically, YOU believe that a being is only worth its intelligence?
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 21, 2007 13:09:56 GMT -5
These are the reasons why there are more moral issues about killing a fetus than a chicken--we can STILL relate to a fetus MORE than we can a chicken. I disagree. We kill a chicken to EAT that chicken. Killing to eat is part of our nature. It is also part of many animal's nature. We don't eat babies; We can get our nutrition and protein elsewhere, therefore, killing a fetus/baby, is not the same as killing an animal, in concept or principle. I would rather save the life of the Chimp than the severely mentally impaired infant which is less functional than the Chimp. Babies are not mentally impaired. The difference between a chimp and a baby/fetus, is that the baby grows and has a very wide potential to learn and become intelligent. A chimp is just a chimp. So if you would rather save a chimp because it is smarter, you may want to consider the growth and learning potentials that it doesn't have compared to a baby/fetus. Eating is part of our nature. We don't eat babies because of our culture, fortunately. No matter what, we can relate to a baby more than other animals because we KNOW that the baby can or will have the cognitive abilities that we have now--we know it will eventually be what we are--therefore, we can relate with the baby more.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 21, 2007 13:40:12 GMT -5
You are placing value on the potential, future personhood and traits. I am not. I focus on the actual, authentic characteristics. It makes little sense to attach current value on what something will, someday be. You are effectively giving rights and protections to something that isn't for what later it will have. That's like giving a prince the title of King and all it's rights and privileges because he will eventually be king. But we don't do that, because there's no logical connection between current X and rights and potential X and rights.
Of course a fetus isn't impaired; that's not the point of analogy: the lack of attainment of the requisite mental characteristics is.
I will still save the chimp because the chimp's developmental level is higher than the fetus and consequently, it has more interests formed, can suffer more. If you simply give "all" humans protection simply because they're human, you run into too many unpalatable problems. Mine has some, but fewer. An enbryo has the "potential" to become an adult. Under your system, it would have equal value morally intrinsically. I think that's appaling and disrespectful to the self-awareness, interests of the more advanced cognition of the adult.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 21, 2007 13:43:26 GMT -5
Kizzume, I believe that intelligence is a key criterion for valuing the moral consideration of an organism insofar as it relates generally to its capacity for interests and suffering. A being gets moral consideration because it can suffer, but more intelligent, more aware creatures can suffer more, and they have more, different types of interests that can be thwarted. A cockroach has very little intelligence, awareness. It has few interests compared to a chimp, thus it's worse to kill the chimp or hurt it than it is the cockroach. Likeweise, an embryo (human) has zero awareness, zero ability to feel pain, thus it's quite frankly preposterious to give it more moral consideration than a chimp simply because the Chimp's mental capacity gives it more, more important interests and suffering capacity.
Intelligence is important, but it intertwines with suffering and interest maximization. I can't maximize or thwart many interests of a fetus that doesn't have the cognitive capacity to think. It can't form them in the first place. When I torture the Bonobo, it's worse. When I kill it, I am thwarting future-oriented interests and negating the desires of a self-aware animal. Killing an early fetus is like brushing off some dead cells. It has no thought or feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 21, 2007 15:18:56 GMT -5
Isn't that essentially the same thing though as being able to relate with it more?
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 21, 2007 15:37:29 GMT -5
Nobody has the right to take up residence in someone's body against their will? It was their actions that did it. It was their will that made it so. It was so often their irresponsibility that creates the situation. They did it! If I drink too much and get sick, don't I have the right to not be imposed upon by the alcohol? It would be MY ACTIONS that caused it, and there's the responsibility and accountability that is proven non-existent in abortion. "Oh, I did this. I shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of MY OWN ACTIONS, I'll just abort." If you don't pay your rent, you should be exposed to hypothermia by not having a place to live. But by your logic, how can anyone do that to your body against your will?
You said the following (still having trouble busting up the quote feature, sorry) If I have a strange, terminal illness and if feeding off your bodily resources would keep me alive, should a court mandate that you allow me to do this? Not hardly, huh? So why should a fetus have more rights than an already-born human being?
This is a horribly flawed argument., in the same way as your Terri Schiavo argument was. I did not make your condition come to pass. Even more so, I had NOTHING to do with your condition in the least. In reality, with what we're talking about, it is the OPPOSITE of your argument. Not only are you accountable to the situation, your actions MAKE the situation in its ENTIRETY. You can only claim otherwise in rape with pregnancy. Which is EXTREMELY low in numbers of overall abortions.
Forced to open herself up to a plethora of potential conditions and ailments?! Are you serious? You make it sound as if THAT is the cause for most abortions. Let's just stick with facts on those conditions and ailments by not labeling it with such spin. That's awful.
After doing research on the death penalty, I concede about the cost. But only the cost, and not the studies that show the fear of possible death preventing heinous crimes. But that is another subject entirely, and we can address that in another thread if you like.
Women not regularly having third trimester abortions only strengthens the fact that guilt comes into play in force about murdering an unborn child, and that it's far less accountable to do it in the beginning. It has everything to do with accountability and nothing to do with how lightly it's taken. Besides, I never implied lightly in the terms of care free, only to put it in perspective. If anything the reduction of abortion shows that people are being safer with sex, and better informed and educated, which studies will also show.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 21, 2007 18:18:32 GMT -5
A cockroach has very little intelligence, awareness. It has few interests compared to a chimp, thus it's worse to kill the chimp or hurt it than it is the cockroach. Likeweise, an embryo (human) has zero awareness, zero ability to feel pain, thus it's quite frankly preposterious to give it more moral consideration than a chimp simply because the Chimp's mental capacity gives it more, more important interests and suffering capacity. Brilliant. So then, if someone kills a retard by beating them to death with a shovel, we won't call it murder, because they are less intelligent and are therefore less aware of what is happening to them, and therefore it is okay!
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 21, 2007 22:21:26 GMT -5
Non-Sequitor. That conclusion doesn't follow from my argument for a variety of reasons.
If someone killed a retard by beating him to death, it would certainly cause him severe pain and anguish, and thus be wrong on this grounds, unless of course, it was necessary to avert more pain and suffering. That's unlikely, though. Furthermore, killing him would still eliminate interests. Retarded people can be quite aware. Someone would have to be so retarded as to not know what's going on, and even then, it would cause pain.
It would certainly be less bad to kill a severely retarded person than to kill a normal person, but that's different from what you extrapolated from my argument. You are also hung up on "less intelligent," but they have the requisite intelligence of self-awareness and they are secondly able to feel pain, suffer. Just to a lesser degree. An embryo/zygote/early fetus has none of that capacity to suffer and cannot think at all. Beat them is literally like beating inanimate objects. They have virtually no interests to thwart, no pain, thus you cannot calculate their suffering or thwarted interests.
We surely wouldn't call punting a rock bad, because you cannot cause it pain, and it has no interests when you break it. A cockroach being killed is very similar: it has no conscious interests, isn't self-aware, can't feel pain. A zygote can't either. I go by actual in lieu of imaginary potential characteristics, valuing real people over potential people.
Moreover....the above quote you used was only arguing that it's worse to do A relative to B type scenario, not that it's absolutely ok to kill. then you go and conclude just that...it's absolutely ok to kill it because it's less intelligent. That doesn't follow. If anything, you would have to make a scenario wherein one is far less self-aware, intelligent, and then say it's less wrong to kill it than something far more aware, cognitively developed. That would be a good conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 21, 2007 22:27:17 GMT -5
Isn't that essentially the same thing though as being able to relate with it more? Maybe in a roundabout way, but it's not based on it being similar or me recognizing that it's similar. It could look nothing alike and be very foreign. I look objective at its level of cognition, because that is important in the types of interests it can have. I try to maximize welfare interests, including minimizing pain and suffering. If an organism can feel pain, I gets moral consideration. If it has a lot to lose: future oriented desires, preferences, wants, killing or harming them can thwart them. That's generally bad. When I kick a rock, I do nothing. An embryo and early fetus is only slightly higher than that. It's on the level of bacterial moral consideration, which is very low.
|
|