From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 00:48:50 MST
Reason spent hours and hours thinking about bioethics, built
a web-site http://www.bioethicssucks.org and came up with,
get this, not an *opinion* on bioethics, but that the entire
field um, er, sucks.
So I write (because I truly am shocked, not having, duh,
carefully NOTED the NAME of the web site)
> > Shocking. "Bioethics is irrelevant". I sure hope that I can't
> > think of any counterexamples. What a great claim/insight!
>
> <peers askance>
and Reason wonders if I'm being sarcastic. Ah, the joys of on-line
communication. ;-)
> I'll take that as played straight, I think.
It was.
> Come on, I'm sure you can come up with a few.
> All counterarguments welcome.
All right, how about this? Since many of us truly believe
that any unnecessary animal suffering is deplorable, inhumane,
cruel, and makes the universe a worse place, there *is* need
for people to carefully consider what sorts of ethics are
appropriate for human beings---the masters of Earth despite
the claims of certain insects---in regard to how we treat
animals. Since this is true, the study of such ethics is
an appropriate activity for philosophers and other thinkers.
Such a study could logically be called bioethics.
What do you say to that?
> > > They are the worst form of human political beast; lying to slightly
> > > improve their own comfort at huge cost to others, quite prepared to
> > > dictate death to millions without blinking an eye, believing it is
> > > right to be able to tell others what to do at gunpoint.
> >
> > Just where are they lying? I've looked into it about 1% of the degree
> > to which you evidently have, but accusations of *lying* usually turn
> > out to be exaggerated when there are deep philosophical or political
> > differences, as is the case here.
>
> Indeed. It's entirely possible that I project my understanding of the world
> on these people, and find that (in my model) the only way their stance makes
> sense is if they are lying through their teeth to justify irrational
> prejudices.
Well then, forget it. Occasionally you see old standard bearers of
some discarded philosophy so unable to come to grips with the fact
that they were wrong, had been wrong for decades, that they resort
to all sorts of self-deception, including lying to themselves. They
can even lie to others in cases where they think that it's a temporary
lie (or simplification) because the others "just don't understand".
But I currently don't know anyone like that in either RL or on-line.
But anyway, what I just described doesn't fit the animal-rights whackos;
they feel that theirs is an up and coming viewpoint, and they may be
right. They think that the truth is on their side, and so have hardly
any reason to lie.
> OTOH, I think this is a fair assumption to make of anyone who
> has worked his or her way into a politicized position.
Maybe you're right. Keep your eye out for an explicit lie, will
you, and let me know? It would be very interesting.
> And add "for personal gain" in there too.
Now THAT'S the truth! People who have money or professional
motives end up much more systematically than the rest of us
filtering what they see and read, always consciously or
unconsciously making it fit their agenda. We do it too, any
of us who hold partisan positions, but we have the luxury of
trying to be objective and open-minded.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:07 MST