Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Corwin · 03-27-2002, 03:58 PM

Clearly not the case with regards to humans. (Otherwise we wouldn't have the conservationist movement.)

Now.... the question... what responsibility does a rabbit have?

Corwin · 03-27-2002, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by marduck:
<strong>A baby is human
so? human; a species of primate.
why do so many here find it such fun to torture helpless animals?? Are the egos so fragile that like fundys and other apes you must pound your chest "me the best, me sit on top of food chain, me kill little critter because me can" (sounds like the Bible God "because I can"
the baby thing was an exageration, I would not put anything alive in a microwave.
What the fuck is wrong with mercy, compassion for something else that can feel pain??</strong>

Who said anything about 'fun?' Aside from the fact that I find 'not being sick' rather 'fun.'

spin · 03-27-2002, 04:02 PM

PB:
-------------------
I can think of at least three reasons why we might object to the use of babies for dangerous medical research:

1) Babies tend to have parents who value them too highly to expose them to dangerous situations.
--------------------------

This is why some tart has just bumped off her five children. (You mightn't want to call that rational, but what human action is?)

PB:
--------------------------
2) If the baby survives the research, chances are it will grow up to be an adult with serious mental problems which the rest of us will have to deal with.
--------------------------

What scientists usaully do is put the guinea pig out of its misery.

PB:
--------------------------
Even allowing for the possibility that some parents might willingly give their babies up for medical research and that such babies would grow up without serious problems, most of us feel a strong instinctive repulsion toward such use of human babies, which outweighs any perceived benefit of the research.
--------------------------

Who gives a shit about your strong instictive repulsion, if such research can prove to be beneficial to the rest of us? It's all for the greater good, right?

Pomp · 03-27-2002, 04:04 PM

marduck,

What the fuck is wrong with mercy, compassion for something else that can feel pain??

Who said that mercy or compassion were "wrong?" There is a significant difference between saying that there is no reason to compel mercy in this case and saying that there is reason to compel no mercy. Does that make sense? The wording is sort of funny.

Personally, I have a degree of compassion for the rabbit in your example, but not a high enough degree that I would consider coercing people not to nuke rabbits. The thought of a rabbit being nuked somewhere in the world does not inspire me to campaign against cruelty to rabbits. The thought of a human baby being nuked inspires a higher degree of compassion in me. That degree is high enough for me to campaign against creulty to humans.

Marduk · 03-27-2002, 04:05 PM

"Who said anything about 'fun?' Aside from the fact that I find 'not being sick' rather 'fun.'"

I was referring to the microwave thing, I have no problem with some of the medical research.

spin · 03-27-2002, 04:07 PM

PB:
--------------------
The animal is never in a position to object to {long list of horros to which such animals are exposed}

How is that relevant? Your stated moral position:

(spin

------------------------------
Morality involves the benefit and protection of the most possible sentient beings; where conflicts arise, morality involves resolving them with the least damage to those sentient beings.
------------------------------

...makes no mention of any beings being in the position to object their treatment. If we can benefit and protect, say, 10,000 humans by subjecting, say, 1,000 baboons to medical research, then isn't this the moral thing to do, according to your moral system?
--------------------

This would deliberate contravention of the first part of the statement. The second part would say to do away with the problem of the cause, ie stop people from breaking rules.

PB:
--------------------
Conversely, if we could benefit and protect 10,000 baboons by subjecting 1,000 humans to such testing, is that not the moral thing to do as well?
--------------------

Same problem.

PB:
--------------------
I'm not being flippant here. I'm trying to draw out the details of your moral system.
--------------------

Now if you could get consenting victims...

spin · 03-27-2002, 04:10 PM

Corwin:
----------------
Clearly not the case with regards to humans. (Otherwise we wouldn't have the conservationist movement.)
Now.... the question... what responsibility does a rabbit have?
----------------

I didn't originally talk about all human beings, but apparently a rather restricted subset.

But you must be kidding me with your persistent lack of understanding of a clearly ironic comment.

Now what is it you are generally trying to say?

Pomp · 03-27-2002, 04:17 PM

spin,

This is why some tart has just bumped off her five children. (You mightn't want to call that rational, but what human action is?)

Note that I used the term "tend to" in the statement to which you are responding. Further, note that my third reason specifically takes into account that subset of parents who do not object to their children being harmed.

What scientists usaully do is put the guinea pig out of its misery.

Killing the baby before it reached a sufficient level of consciousness to comprehend it's own mortality would (IMO, and I am not at all sure that newborn babies or even late term fetuses do not possess this level of consciousness, which is why I do not advocate infanticide) be an ethical resolution to the problem, were it not for my third reason.

Who gives a shit about your strong instictive repulsion, if such research can prove to be beneficial to the rest of us? It's all for the greater good, right?

Note that I am not claiming that my personal instinctive revulsion is reason for anyone else to change their actions. I am making an observation about a near-universal human revulsion. My revulsion is not sufficient cause for you to change yoru actions, but your revulsion is.

Pomp · 03-27-2002, 04:25 PM

spin,

Quote:

Morality involves the benefit and protection of the most possible sentient beings; where conflicts arise, morality involves resolving them with the least damage to those sentient beings.

This {killing 1,000 sentient beings for the protection and benefit of 10,000 sentient beings} would deliberate contravention of the first part of the statement.

I don't understand. Am I not protecting and benefitting the most possible sentient beings in my example? For the purposes of argument, assume that I am using baboons in cardio research to prevent heart disease in humans. I can save these 10,000 human sentient beings by killing these 1,000 sentient baboon beings. How does this violate the statement that we should benefit and protect the most possible sentient beings?

The second part would say to do away with the problem of the cause, ie stop people from breaking rules.

What rule is being broken by whom?

Now if you could get consenting victims...

Where does your system of morality, as you have presented it, make a distinction between consent and non-consent? This appears to be a new distinction that you have created or presented in response to my question about medical research.

As I am trying to figure out how your moral system works, I'm going to continue quoting your complete stated moral system at the top of each of my posts. If this rule about consent is to be considered part of that system, please let me know so I can incorporate it.

spin · 03-27-2002, 04:32 PM

PB:
-------------------
My revulsion is not sufficient cause for you to change yoru actions, but your revulsion is.
-------------------

You're right about the first part, but not the second. Revulsion per se has little value. The revulsion one felt in the deep south when a nigra invaded waht society merely refected badly on the one feeling revulsion.

These sorts of almost physical reactions are predominantly learnt, so there is nothing intrinsic to such reaction of the individual.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2002, 03:58 PM	#101
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Clearly not the case with regards to humans. (Otherwise we wouldn't have the conservationist movement.) Now.... the question... what responsibility does a rabbit have?

03-27-2002, 04:02 PM	#103
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	PB: ------------------- I can think of at least three reasons why we might object to the use of babies for dangerous medical research: 1) Babies tend to have parents who value them too highly to expose them to dangerous situations. -------------------------- This is why some tart has just bumped off her five children. (You mightn't want to call that rational, but what human action is?) PB: -------------------------- 2) If the baby survives the research, chances are it will grow up to be an adult with serious mental problems which the rest of us will have to deal with. -------------------------- What scientists usaully do is put the guinea pig out of its misery. PB: -------------------------- Even allowing for the possibility that some parents might willingly give their babies up for medical research and that such babies would grow up without serious problems, most of us feel a strong instinctive repulsion toward such use of human babies, which outweighs any perceived benefit of the research. -------------------------- Who gives a shit about your strong instictive repulsion, if such research can prove to be beneficial to the rest of us? It's all for the greater good, right?

03-27-2002, 04:04 PM	#104
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	marduck, What the fuck is wrong with mercy, compassion for something else that can feel pain?? Who said that mercy or compassion were "wrong?" There is a significant difference between saying that there is no reason to compel mercy in this case and saying that there is reason to compel no mercy. Does that make sense? The wording is sort of funny. Personally, I have a degree of compassion for the rabbit in your example, but not a high enough degree that I would consider coercing people not to nuke rabbits. The thought of a rabbit being nuked somewhere in the world does not inspire me to campaign against cruelty to rabbits. The thought of a human baby being nuked inspires a higher degree of compassion in me. That degree is high enough for me to campaign against creulty to humans.

03-27-2002, 04:05 PM	#105
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"Who said anything about 'fun?' Aside from the fact that I find 'not being sick' rather 'fun.'" I was referring to the microwave thing, I have no problem with some of the medical research.

03-27-2002, 04:07 PM	#106
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	PB: -------------------- The animal is never in a position to object to {long list of horros to which such animals are exposed} How is that relevant? Your stated moral position: (spin ------------------------------ Morality involves the benefit and protection of the most possible sentient beings; where conflicts arise, morality involves resolving them with the least damage to those sentient beings. ------------------------------ ...makes no mention of any beings being in the position to object their treatment. If we can benefit and protect, say, 10,000 humans by subjecting, say, 1,000 baboons to medical research, then isn't this the moral thing to do, according to your moral system? -------------------- This would deliberate contravention of the first part of the statement. The second part would say to do away with the problem of the cause, ie stop people from breaking rules. PB: -------------------- Conversely, if we could benefit and protect 10,000 baboons by subjecting 1,000 humans to such testing, is that not the moral thing to do as well? -------------------- Same problem. PB: -------------------- I'm not being flippant here. I'm trying to draw out the details of your moral system. -------------------- Now if you could get consenting victims...

03-27-2002, 04:10 PM	#107
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Corwin: ---------------- Clearly not the case with regards to humans. (Otherwise we wouldn't have the conservationist movement.) Now.... the question... what responsibility does a rabbit have? ---------------- I didn't originally talk about all human beings, but apparently a rather restricted subset. But you must be kidding me with your persistent lack of understanding of a clearly ironic comment. Now what is it you are generally trying to say?

03-27-2002, 04:17 PM	#108
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, This is why some tart has just bumped off her five children. (You mightn't want to call that rational, but what human action is?) Note that I used the term "tend to" in the statement to which you are responding. Further, note that my third reason specifically takes into account that subset of parents who do not object to their children being harmed. What scientists usaully do is put the guinea pig out of its misery. Killing the baby before it reached a sufficient level of consciousness to comprehend it's own mortality would (IMO, and I am not at all sure that newborn babies or even late term fetuses do not possess this level of consciousness, which is why I do not advocate infanticide) be an ethical resolution to the problem, were it not for my third reason. Who gives a shit about your strong instictive repulsion, if such research can prove to be beneficial to the rest of us? It's all for the greater good, right? Note that I am not claiming that my personal instinctive revulsion is reason for anyone else to change their actions. I am making an observation about a near-universal human revulsion. My revulsion is not sufficient cause for you to change yoru actions, but your revulsion is.

03-27-2002, 04:32 PM	#110
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	PB: ------------------- My revulsion is not sufficient cause for you to change yoru actions, but your revulsion is. ------------------- You're right about the first part, but not the second. Revulsion per se has little value. The revulsion one felt in the deep south when a nigra invaded waht society merely refected badly on the one feeling revulsion. These sorts of almost physical reactions are predominantly learnt, so there is nothing intrinsic to such reaction of the individual.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.