From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Wed May 15 2002 - 02:40:30 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.
Now, now -- I said the point(s) at which a society draws the consensus
line(s) between human and non-human is(are) abitrary. There's a process that
leads to those lines, but the number of different results that have existed
would seem to indicate that the lines are, for all intents and purposes,
abitrary products of human opinion. I said nothing about killing children.
I seem to recall that you believe in the existance of fundamental human
rights that exist independent of human opinion? (Could be wrong, my memory
being what it is). I'm interested in seeing if you believe that your
definition of humanity is somehow more right that every other definition
that exists, has existed or will exist.
> > 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?
I'm saying that if an objective ethical framework exists, no-one has come up
with a satisfactory way to document and prove its existance. I'm of the
opinion that such a thing doesn't exist. Ethics are an outgrowth of
intelligent thought and opinion. They don't exist without us or apart from
us and our beliefs; they are belief systems, manufactured rulesets.
Do they have value? My own opinion on that matter is that any belief
system -- including systems of ethics -- has whatever value you decide to
put on it. Subjectivity again. I personally find the ethical underpinnings
of the scientific method and laissez-faire capitalism serve me well in most
arenas. The ethical underpinnings of humanism are also pretty nice to try to
live by.
But in any case; are you claiming that there is an absolute ethical
framework and that you know what it is and can document and prove that?
Since I'm speaking from a non-classically educated position, the rest of my
elders and betters can feel free to weigh in with the accumulated weight of
Western thought on this matter :)
> > 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?
Back to the killing thing again, sheesh.
Cats are non-human property right now. Most cat owners would cheerfully off
one of their neighbours before harming a hair on their feline companions.
Entire advocacy and direct action groups exist to champion the well-being of
living beings that cannot look after themselves in a human world. (Ditto for
inanimate things considered human in some cultures, for that matter).
I have trouble seeing why this would all change if the laws changed. Do you
view humanity as one vast sea of cat-killing, kami-smashing, baby-murders,
held in check only by the benevolant legislative actions and kindly threats
of conditional violence from the State? That's a pretty strange outlook.
Sadly, all too common, I suspect.
Societies meandered foward just fine back in the day when children were
property and could be killed, maimed or whatever else with few resulting
consequences. Were there vast pits filled with murdered children? Of course
not.
So anyway, yes, all is arbitary. Is it all good? How can you tell? You're
human and arbitrary.
I'm not trying to advocate my own preferences insomuch as point out how
silly it is to try and make out that our own preferences are anything other
than our own preferences. So you don't want to live next door to me, because
you think I'd kill my own children if not threatened with State-sanctioned
violence, simply because I have a different definition of humanity and a
different way of looking at potentiality of non-humans. Of such things, wars
are made.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:06 MST