From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 00:40:28 MDT
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.
Young children are potential human beings, but only if given the help needed
for them to grow. Drop a child in with wolves, or leave it in the middle of
the road, and you don't get much of a human being at the end of the process.
Cats are potential human beings, if given the help needed for them to grow.
In this case, it'd be genetic/technological/whatever. But there's really no
fundamental difference between the effort put into that and the effort put
into raising a child: both require outside help from humans.
So killing a Turing-test-failing child should be on the same moral/ethical
level as killing a cat -- something that a lot of us consider more
reprehensible than killing a human being, but usually for different reasons.
Both are potential humans, neither are actually human (yet).
The above process of line-drawing is no different from the process of
line-drawing that permeates the cloud of abortion idiocy. Just as abitrary,
too. Whether or not the lines correspond to some physical or scientific
reality is pretty much irrelevant, much as I'd like to be living in an E.E.
'Doc' Smith scientific oligarchy. Oh well.
Lee's society sounds much like we're told that the Middle Ages were like by
certain authorities: children are like young animals (taken care of, looked
after, pretty much irrelevant in the scheme of things, little emotional
attachment) until they're old enough to behave like miniature humans, at
which point they join a profession and start learning/working.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
--> Samantha Atkins
> Utterly false. And I won't get into the abortion idiocy again.
>
> YP Fun wrote:
>
> > His arguement is no different than
> > conception in regards to abortion.
> >
> > Harsh but true.
> >
> > --- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> >
> >>What a horrible title! I didn't read the below from
> >>Lee. If I
> >>did I would know we have a lot more differences than
> >>whether
> >>there should be laws against child abuse! I do not
> >>what to say
> >>to such an atrocious conclusion. I am at a loss for
> >>words.
> >>
> >>- samantha
> >>
> >>
> >>Smigrodzki, Rafal wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Lee Corbin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm also aware that in my society, the
> >>>
> >>taking of the lives
> >>
> >>> of one's children is against the law.
> >>>
> >>(I will argue another
> >>
> >>> time that up to a certain age, parents
> >>>
> >>ought to have the
> >>
> >>> legal freedom to kill their children,
> >>>
> >>and that there should
> >>
> >>> be a ceremony denoting the moment that
> >>>
> >>the child becomes a
> >>
> >>> part of the community. But I don't
> >>>
> >>want to advocate final
> >>
> >>> states here---only the general
> >>>
> >>direction (freedom) towards
> >>
> >>>which we should move.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > YP
> >
> > =====
> > Please Copy... Ideas deserve to be free.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > We must respect truth and logic, no matter what they unveil.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
> > http://launch.yahoo.com
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:02 MST