From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 03:01:01 MST
--> Lee Corbin
> 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.
Isn't that an opinion? :)
[And it's not built yet -- barely even started. This is the idea and
resource soliciting stage. I hope to have it finished within the next couple
of weeks, and then go into publicizing and infrequent update mode].
> So I write (because I truly am shocked, not having, duh,
> carefully NOTED the NAME of the web site)
Well, this conversation would be easier in person; it's hard to put the
right tone of voice to all of that. I'm really not sure what your intended
effect is. Maybe you're waving your arms while saying that, I'm not certain.
> > > 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.
Sheesh. You need more complex smileys. There's an extropian project...
> > 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?
I'd say fair enough. But it's just renaming a field of ethics. When I say
bioethics, I'm taking the current common meaning; i.e. people who want to
govern, advise on and control medical and biotechnological advances on
supposedly ethical grounds. One would suppose that one of my points is that
this current meaning of bioethics is not in the same class as your meaning
above there -- it's a sham cover for luddites and control freaks who don't
mind killing people to feel comfortable. Ethics really doesn't come into it
any more than in professional politics.
> > 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.
Lucky you. Perhaps I'm just in the wrong subculture, but self-deception is a
way of life for far too many people I know.
> 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.
Much of politicized bioethics ties into abortion and general (Christian)
conservatism, alas.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:08 MST