From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed May 15 2002 - 01:38:40 MDT
Reason wrote:
> --> Samantha Atkins
>
>
>>Reason wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Let me see now:
>>>
>>>* Take a starting point of defining a human being as being the set of
>>>average performers out of a large group of people.
>>>* Circularly define humans as being something that can pass a
>>>
>>Turing Test
>>
>>>conducted by another human.
>>>* Most young children are not human.
>>>
>>>I see nothing unreasonable with the above. All that makes us human is
>>>information processing of a particular manner and sophistication.
>>>
>>You see nothing reasonable with an argument that leads you to
>>conclude that *human* children are not *human*? Wow.
>>
>
> Nope, no unreasonableness there. But that's my point of view. As I was
> saying, the point at which societies draw the line is completely arbitrary.
I don't feel happy living in the vicinity of anyone who think
killing children or considering them inhuman is a completely
arbitary decision.
> Shinto, for example, would have you believe all sorts of inanimate objects
> are human. Portions of Western culture pre-1800s would have you believe that
> Africans aren't human. There is no absolute frame of reference, there are no
> natural rights. It's all decided on by (fallible, oddball, often deluded,
> rarely scientific) people.
>
Are you then claiming that there is no objective ethics and
never can be just because different cultures in different times
have had different beliefs? Do you think that just because
ethics is not the business of science that is completely junk
and of no value at all?
> So what makes your viewpoint entitled to judge my viewpoint with "wow"? You
> still haven't explicitly justified within your own viewpoint as to why a
> Turing test failing human child should be considered human.
>
If you think it is equally acceptable to live in a culture where
human children are considered not human and can be killed with
no compunction or penalty by their "owners" and you find this a
desirable or equally reasonable society then I have little to
say to you. Can you project the actuality you loftily claim to
be equally good because it "is all arbitrary" and actually see
it as equally good? If not, then why bother to assert it?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:05 MST