The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Iron]

But believing that ANY total explanation exists is to use the same reasoning any Catholic you so detest uses. A pointless search for meaning which our overdeveloped intelligence has accidentally prompted us to seek

 

[Kwayera]

There isn't any total explanation. Yet, anyway.

But ignoring what there currently is because it makes you feel inferior and uncomfortable is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Iron]

You say ignoring, I say adapting. Means and ends. If you think that the end should be 'truth' or explanation, then youre doomed to wander the desert in search of an illusive homeland. The end should be making happiness attainable for everyone in the here and now, rather than hijacking science, which is neutral to such goals, to promote a relativist agenda accepting all sorts of evils which satisfies our fleeting, selfish, cruel desires

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I agree with you. Our intelligence evolved..better and that's the difference, sure. The problem I have is that such theories, when expressed so crudely, become a justification for a much lower standard of behaviour - animal behaviour; following our instinct for what gives us, personally, most happiness - rather than a greater good, like a society which holds all life to be sacred.

I'm pretty sure all those behaviours existed well before the theories

 

[Kwayera]

You say ignoring, I say adapting. Means and ends. If you think that the end should be 'truth' or explanation, then youre doomed to wander the desert in search of an illusive homeland. The end should be making happiness attainable for everyone in the here and now, rather than hijacking science, which is neutral to such goals, to promote a relativist agenda accepting all sorts of evils which satisfies our fleeting, selfish, cruel desires

Once again, I'm not trying to justify/'accept' our 'fleeting, selfish, cruel desires' - I'm just saying that they're there, and there's a reason, and you can't deny that reason because you think humans are more superior in that particular area than any other animal.

It's not hijacking science, nor it is a 'relativist agenda'. It is what it IS.

 

[Iron]

It really isnt. There is no IS. Accept this, you must.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Then obviously you've never observed those orca spontaneously invent hunting techniques, or chimpanzees utilise a tool they've never seen before (Caledonian crows do this especially well).

That is intelligence. Not an exclusively human trait. Having a relatively distinguished level of intelligence in the animal kingdom does not make you comparable to a human in other aspects.

And love? Love is chemical, nothing more.

That is an opinion.

Animals mourn for their dead mates just as we do; orca captured from the wild mourn for their family so much that many commit suicide. Yes, suicide, that abstract concept of taking one's own life - is that driven by instinct?

I guess you are right about that if what you say is true.

Apparently you've never thought much about being human. Hunger is an instinct in us as well, and we can be similarly (if more subtely) trained with the same pavlovian responses (want to chime in here on the philosophy, KFunk?). Money is merely an advanced form of what bowerbirds do. Almost everything we do is driven by or evolved from instinct.

I agree, and that is why I didn't say that humans lacked instinct.

The line that you ascribe between man and other apes is not as solid as you think it is: animals show compassion, and kindness, just as we show primality and selfishness.

Animals do not show compassion. An animal is a machine if you will. An animal is a machine with programming that can feel pain and has its own agenda. An animal does not give a shit about anything other than passing on its own DNA.

Dogs don't come because it becomes 'instinct' to expect a reward when you call their name. Tidbitting is a training tool to associate the sounds that are their names with good things as opposed to bad - just like we associate bad things to words like "rape" and good things to words like "chocolate". The dogs come when called because you MIGHT have a food reward, not because they dully and instinctually expect you to.

That's what I meant. Didn't get any sleep last night.


EDIT: If you truly think that a person's life is worth as much as an animalls, then you would have no qualms killing an animal to save a human?

 

[Kwayera]

That is intelligence. Not an exclusively human trait. Having a relatively distinguished level of intelligence in the animal kingdom does not make you comparable to a human in other aspects.

No, it isn't. Invention is not just intelligence, it is imagination.

Animals do not show compassion. An animal is a machine if you will. An animal is a machine with programming that can feel pain and has its own agenda. An animal does not give a shit about anything other than passing on its own DNA.

Bullshit. No, sorry - horseshit. I'll leave you one lingering example, because I don't have time to go through the entire animal kingdom with you (and while it is true that only 'higher' animals have the capacity for emotions such as compassion, that does not mean that NO animals display it). Orca in Punta Norte, Patagonia, that hunt elephant seal pups will release their last catch for the day and gently push it back ashore, which in itself is an extremely dangerous procedure for the orca. Explain that, if not compassion or some other emotion that requires human-like planning or invention.

EDIT: If you truly think that a person's life is worth as much as an animalls, then you would have no qualms killing an animal to save a human?

I don't think a humans' life is worth as much as an animal, and if I had to chose between, say, killing a tiger that is mauling a human or letting the person die, I'd go with the former unless both could be prevented.

I don't think an animal's life is worth more than a humans' or as much. But I don't think it's worth less, either.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

No, it isn't. Invention is not just intelligence, it is imagination.

I beg to differ. A monkey can learn to push a stick through an ant's nest (or w/e) for food but it does not know what hoofprints are. It is not imagination but simply learned knowledge.

Bullshit. No, sorry - horseshit. I'll leave you one lingering example, because I don't have time to go through the entire animal kingdom with you (and while it is true that only 'higher' animals have the capacity for emotions such as compassion, that does not mean that NO animals display it). Orca in Punta Norte, Patagonia, that hunt elephant seal pups will release their last catch for the day and gently push it back ashore, which in itself is an extremely dangerous procedure for the orca. Explain that, if not compassion or some other emotion that requires human-like planning or invention.

My only explanation is that the orca is putting it back for later usage. It probably knows that it cannot eat as much as it likes.

I don't think an animal's life is worth more than a humans' or as much. But I don't think it's worth less, either.

That doesn't make complete logicity. Uncharacteristic of you.

 

[Kwayera]

I beg to differ. A monkey can learn to push a stick through an ant's nest (or w/e) for food but it does not know what hoofprints are. It is not imagination but simply learned knowledge.

How do you know? It's actually a huge cognitive leap to make the connection that stick in hole = access to food, and it's not that much further of a leap to recognise that different hoofprints belong to different animals just like different poop belongs to different animals. Just because we distinguish it visually rather than pheremonally doesn't make it very different.

My only explanation is that the orca is putting it back for later usage. It probably knows that it cannot eat as much as it likes.

That's not the conclusion that hundreds of highly-qualified and experienced researchers reached, and even it if was, that in itself requires an enormous amount of perception of the future and consequences of actions which I think you'd ascribe only to humans.

That doesn't make complete logicity. Uncharacteristic of you.

It wasn't supposed to.

 

[KFunk]

I know little about these animals, but I can say that they at least do not have imagination. Imagination allows a person to think about something that they have not seen or a concept that does not exist. Any 'relationships' a chimpanzee might have do not involve love but are merely a (perhaps evolutionary) tool to improve survivability.

On the whoe, an animal does not have free thought. An animal is driven by basic instincts and everything an animal does is driven by instinct. You can teach a dog to come to you by gradually giving it food each time it obeys and eventually it will come when you don't have food: they come because they are of lesser intellect and cannot tell that you don't have food. They associate the command with food. Hunger is an instinct. Wheras for humans, the need for food is replaced by the need for money.

Read this article about dolphins first - they really are quite intelligent. The article reveals forward planning, cunning and culture in a dolphin population. Orcas and dolphins (as Kwayera mentioned) have variable dialects, behaviors and hunting tricks from location to location. They adapt in novel ways to their environment and pass on idosyncratic behaviors, generating the beginnings of 'culture'.

 

[KFunk]

Dont get me started on truth.
It's ALL disguise. We choose our costumes based on utility. Your ape costume is totally degrading, no utility

But if you give up on truth all together then you give up a forum in which I have any reason to accept your assertions. Certainly, I could choose them on the basis of their utility ('do his claims suit my needs?') but then acceptance of your claims is contingent upon the desires of others. You can safetly argue for relativism within certain spheres (as I do) like ethics and aesthetics from a firm basis of logical truth, physical truth and naturalistic metaphysics (or, at least, as solid as you are going to find). However, once you throw away this firm base your claims can no longer find any further arbitrator beyond the preferences of the individual.

I agree with you. Our intelligence evolved..better and that's the difference, sure. The problem I have is that such theories, when expressed so crudely, become a justification for a much lower standard of behaviour - animal behaviour; following our instinct for what gives us, personally, most happiness - rather than a greater good, like a society which holds all life to be sacred.

I agree with Kwayera here - sure, they can be used to justify certain positions but in and of themselves they do not endorse them. It is only from a base of assumptions, e.g. "If human intelligence evolved much as it did in apes then it follows that X is morally permissible", that such value laden claims can be said to follow. Note that a good theory of moral relativism can prevent this from happening in the first place.

It just struck me how much you espouse, perhaps in a mock form perhaps not, a pragmatist position in which utility (of one form or another) overcomes the traditional objective 'criterion' of truth - which typically produces the problem of the criterion, a.k.a. the diallelus (a vicious circle of proof). The simplest statement of the problem is 'How on earth can we justify our principle of justification?' I became obsessed with this problem for a period of time and tried on many hats and I will conceed that the Diallelus strikes me as somewhat insoluble and that pragmatism seems a reasonable way out. However, it always seemed to me that one of the first beliefs you would want to admit into the pragmatist's worldview is that of an observer independent physical world -- i.e., an assumption of objectivity.

Also, because I only just realised that it might be the case, is the name 'Iron' drawn from Richard Rorty's idealised pragmatist - the liberal ironist?

 

[Iron]

I'm tempted to lie, but Iron is just a pet name for Maggie.

I was curious about how you resolved the issue of foundational beliefs, but how do you get past the nihilism boss?

 

[KFunk]

I'm tempted to lie, but Iron is just a pet name for Maggie.

I was curious about how you resolved the issue of foundational beliefs, but how do you get past the nihilism boss?

Ahh, I had thought previously that it was probably a Thatcher reference. Regretably, my historical knowledge is not very good. Nonetheless, the similarity between your rants and Rorty's Ironist is a brilliant quirk - and the puns multiply once you toss irony ito the mix.

On foundational beliefs: as I've indicated previously, I advocate a constructive nihilism (I should mention that this is not a technical term; it simply seemed apt). 'Nihilism' because I do think that values and moral properties are relative, socially constructed entities which lack objective grounding in physical relations or metaphysics (of a Platonic or a more mature form - though I am open to being shown wrong here). Having said this, I do not think that there is cause for despair.

Humans are predisposed to value things and to moralise (you might look to fields like Object Relations or Attachment theory and Moral Psychology for substantiation of thses claims). I really don't think we are in danger of having all meaning crumble from our world, for if nothing else it is worth noting that value and meaning have appeared, nonetheless, as a result of our aforementioned predispositions. We may experience an initial existential anxiety when we realise that we, and we alone, are the source of meaning in the world, but I think that this can be overcome. I certainly don't feel as though I have been duped in inheriting this nihilistic vision. I still love, value, cherish and moralise - I simply admit that these actions involve expressions of individual preferences. "Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. " - Sartre

 

[Iron]

Yeah, my reading is usually political philosophy, but ive found that the big concepts of love and hate somehow survive nihilism (cf Nietzsche's weakness v strength) Both seem to me valid grounds for determining belief and action, but I think that survival demands that we choose love

 

[KFunk]

One can only hope that we are able to make that choice once the critical time is upon us! All you need is love.

 

[*TRUE*]

For sure it is. Unfortunately, it just doesn't exist

LOL But how do you know???
You might think that but how can you KNOW?

 

[*TRUE*]

Technical issue: a number of contraceptive devices are thought to have a partly abortive function. For example, every now and then a woman on the oral contraceptive pill will in fact have an egg fertilised only to have it aborted because the lining of the uterus is inadequate (and similarly for intrauterine devices, morning after pills etc...) N.B. the abortive aspects of the OCP are fairly controversial, though its hard to tell how much of the contoversy is driven by science and how much by ideology.



Shall we let nature take its course in cases of cancer, diabetes and syphilis? 'Letting nature take its course' is clearly not intrinsicly valuable (unless you are consistent and think cancer should be left untreated) so I think that's a pretty poor target for criticism.

True that!
Y do people think they can argue this issue well enough to persuade others? People will believe what they have chosen to have faith in and believe.
If they choose to believe we are evolved animals etc , then abortion , pretty much ok
If they choose to believe that even the human species has levels of humaness , then abortion is pretty much ok too, sometimes.
If they believe that God is responsible for each person , has a purpose for each one and that this came about at conception , or even before , then abortion will be wrong.
I cant come close to understanding the buddhist point of view but I guess many buddhists think it is wrong too.
No one can conclusively prove anything using 'facts' can they? Facts will only go so far....
Everyone will believe and trust in what they choose to believe is right.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

LOL But how do you know???
You might think that but how can you KNOW?

Well, the thing I always wonder about with souls is when we started having them.

Not in terms of conception and the fetus, I don't care about that, you can pick any stage you like, but in our evolutionary history

Like, did Australopithecus have souls? Or not until homo habilius? Homo erectus? What about the Neanderthals, did they have souls?

It just seems stupid to believe in humans having souls, but not other species of animals, when you have to set an arbitrary number of millions or at least hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary divergence since souls came into existence for particular species of animals and only particular species of animals

EDIT: unless you believe all living things have souls?

 

[*TRUE*]

Well, the thing I always wonder about with souls is when we started having them.

Not in terms of conception and the fetus, I don't care about that, you can pick any stage you like, but in our evolutionary history

Like, did Australopithecus have souls? Or not until homo habilius? Homo erectus? What about the Neanderthals, did they have souls?

It just seems stupid to believe in humans having souls, but not other species animals, when you have to set an arbitrary number of millions/hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary divergence since souls came into existence for particular species of animals and only particular species of animals

EDIT: unless you believe all living things have souls?

Good answer. You arent stupid
I have a different belief system to you though, & I am not sold on evolution...but thats ok.
I wonder if all animals have souls? I'd like to think they did...