js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/29/85)
Joseph Arceneaux writes: > If we should place such a premium on that trait known as intelligence that we > give moral superiority to our species over the others on our planet, then we >must also give such MORAL superiority to those of our species who are most in- > telligent. The second part of the above statement doesn't follow from the first, and the author makes absolutely no effort to support it. I've read other comments along these lines too, like: "Well, if it's conciousness which is important, what if you're temporarily unconcious. Is it all right to kill you?" or "What about stupid people, don't they have rights?" WAKE UP, PEOPLE! We're not talking about according rights in varying amounts depending on how intelligent people are on some linear scale. The straw man builders are the only ones who have made statements like that. We're talking about a threshold of conciousness somewhere between animals and people. ALL people, except the brain-dead and those only recently conceived fall above this threshold. Of course, it's hard to determine just when in it's developement a fetus passes this threshold and becomes more than an animal. AND, of course, it's good to give the benefit of the doubt since we don't know. But do we need to push this benefit of the doubt back all of the way to conception? Is there any doubt that a 6 week old fetus does not yet have more conciousness than a Labrador Retriever? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "And I don't want to die. I'd rather ride on my motorcy- cle." Arlo Guthrie
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/29/85)
> The only arguable difference between our species and the other animals on the > planet is that of intelligence, but that is a difference of degree, not kind. I disagree; I can certainly argue for the arguability of other differences. E.g., only humans seem to be interested in moral questions. > So, as you can see, I don't at all believe that our intelligence inherrently > gives us a moral edge over the other creatures of the earth. I agree. As I have tried to point out before, if intelligence is the criterion for humanity or rights, then the time will come when someone has to decide which humans have the required level of intelligence. > It's just not clear at all to > me that our species is inherently better than any other. If it is true, as I suggested above, that only humans ask questions of the form, "Is action X moral?", then it would not really make sense to say that our species is better than any other, in the sense of moral superiority. The fact that we seem to have a sense of morality, even if it leads each of us to different conclusions, means that we can be either good or bad, but a mouse (for example) is neither good nor bad, it's just a mouse. > All such ideas are, > I feel, just a form of prejudice resulting from our egocentricity. So with > reference to Andrew Koenig's (hope I got that right) "simple question," I cer- > tainly cannot see the difference (morally) between killing fetus' and killing > [non-human] animals. But, you (apparently; I may be reading too much into your article) do see a difference between killing a fetus and killing a child (say, six months after birth). Why? And, do you see a difference between killing an animal and killing a plant? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
ashby@uiucdcsp.UUCP (01/30/85)
In his note on animal rights and abortion, Arceneaux (jla) states that the only difference between humans and other animals is their relative intelligence. After stating this premise, he then rambles on, seemingly in favor of animal rights. However, I do not accept his premise, and neither would many others. For me, the difference is that man possesses a soul, and animals do not. Thus even the least intelligent human (however that is measured) is inherently more "valuable" than the most intelligent "lower" animal. Since this is net.abortion, and not net.animal_rights, I won't babble on about animal rights or the lack thereof. As far as devising moral yardsticks, how about deciding whether or not a fetus possesses a soul. This is unlikely to change many minds however, especially among those who don't believe in souls.
act@pur-phy.UUCP (Tselis) (01/31/85)
In article <694@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > >I disagree; I can certainly argue for the arguability of other differences. >E.g., only humans seem to be interested in moral questions. > Not all humans are interested in moral questions, or are even cognizant of them. What about people who are so hopelessly retarded that they have no conception of "morality"? They're just as human as the next person, who may have an IQ of 150, as far as I'm concerned. >....As I have tried to point out before, if intelligence is >the criterion for humanity or rights, then the time will come when >someone has to decide which humans have the required level of intelligence. > The same may be said about the required level of "moral awareness". The yardstick of "moral awareness" is just as good (or as bad) as that of intelligence. Indeed, the two may be so inextricably intertwined that any distinction between them is meaningless. Wherever morals may come from (a knotty question in itself), a certain degree of intelligence is required to be aware of them and their place in our lives. > >If it is true, as I suggested above, that only humans ask questions >of the form, "Is action X moral?", then it would not really make >sense to say that our species is better than any other, in the >sense of moral superiority. The fact that we seem to have a sense >of morality, even if it leads each of us to different conclusions, >means that we can be either good or bad, but a mouse (for example) >is neither good nor bad, it's just a mouse. > Many humans do not ask such questions. Some sociopaths, for instance, seem to have no comprehension that their actions are wrong, or evil, so do they get struck from the roster of humans? Or am I misunderstanding the whole point here?
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/31/85)
** NOTE: This has been moved back to net.abortion to spare others. > > It seems to me that questions such as abortion and animal rights can easily be > settled once a moral framework is defined. Once a 'moral meterstick' is > determined, such issues need merely be measured against them. Of course the > hard part is agreeing on such a structure. > It is impossible. The "moral matchsticks" for Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam are different. I DON'T agree that intelligence has anything to do with it. > The only arguable difference between our species and the other animals on the > planet is that of intelligence, > ?? - What about dangerousness? A powerful rifle can make short work of any animal on earth. > > So, as you can see, I don't at all believe that our intelligence inherrently > gives us a moral edge over the other creatures of the earth. > > Joseph Arceneaux Of course not, the only morality anyone has ever heard of that places intelligence as morally superior is the one you invented for this article. If animals, fetuses, or whatever want rights, they have to ask for them. The human race did not wake up one day and say "by gosh, we just all collectively realized that blacks, women, or whowever, has been being denied equal rights and we will change it today!" Entire inner cities were burned to the ground before the country woke up to the conditions in the getthos. The women's movement is still fighting for equal rights for women. There is no big platter of "rights" somewhere that are ordained for all living creatures. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (02/01/85)
> In article <694@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > > > >I disagree; I can certainly argue for the arguability of other differences. > >E.g., only humans seem to be interested in moral questions. > > > Not all humans are interested in moral questions, or are even > cognizant of them. What about people who are so hopelessly retarded > that they have no conception of "morality"? They're just as human as > the next person, who may have an IQ of 150, as far as I'm concerned. I agree that the mentally retarded are also human. > >....As I have tried to point out before, if intelligence is > >the criterion for humanity or rights, then the time will come when > >someone has to decide which humans have the required level of intelligence. > > > The same may be said about the required level of "moral awareness". The > yardstick of "moral awareness" is just as good (or as bad) as that of > intelligence... I was not suggesting "moral awareness" as a yardstick of humanity; I was only disagreeing with the idea that intelligence is the only thing that differentiates humans from animals. > >If it is true, as I suggested above, that only humans ask questions > >of the form, "Is action X moral?"... > Many humans do not ask such questions. Some sociopaths, for instance, > seem to have no comprehension that their actions are wrong, or evil, > so do they get struck from the roster of humans? Or am I misunderstanding > the whole point here? I think that you did miss my point. To me, the roster of humans coincides with the roster of members of the species homo sapiens. I was not proposing deleting any of the members of the latter from the former; rather, I was arguing against deleting some homo sapiens from the roster of humans on the grounds of intelligence (or, equivalently, making a new list based on intelligence). Gary Samuelson
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (02/01/85)
> >E.g., only humans seem to be interested in moral questions. > > Not all humans are interested in moral questions, or are even > cognizant of them. What about people who are so hopelessly retarded > ... > Many humans do not ask such questions. Some sociopaths, for instance, > seem to have no comprehension that their actions are wrong, or evil, > so do they get struck from the roster of humans? Or am I misunderstanding > the whole point here? You are indeed missing the entire point. When speaking of "humans," "human beings," "homo sapien," and so forth, it should be obvious that one is referring anthropologically to the species as a whole. Thus generalizations may be made, even though we all know that Arthur Gumby down the street is an exception to all of them. ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/02/85)
In article <3300001@uiucdcsp.UUCP> ashby@uiucdcsp.UUCP writes: > >As far as devising moral yardsticks, how about deciding whether or >not a fetus possesses a soul. This is unlikely to change many minds >however, especially among those who don't believe in souls. Actually we need to start with a definition of 'soul'. A nice place to start might be "The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible". It gives the meaning of such concepts to the writers of the Bible, which may turn out to be *quite* different than what you think they are. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (02/03/85)
> Joseph Arceneaux writes: > > If we should place such a premium on that trait known as intelligence that we > > give moral superiority to our species over the others on our planet, then we > >must also give such MORAL superiority to those of our species who are most in- > > telligent. > You don't have to worry about morals. > The second part of the above statement doesn't follow from the first, and > the author makes absolutely no effort to support it. I've read other comments > along these lines too, like: "Well, if it's conciousness which is important, > what if you're temporarily unconcious. Is it all right to kill you?" or "What > about stupid people, don't they have rights?" > WAKE UP, PEOPLE! We're not talking about according rights in varying > amounts depending on how intelligent people are on some linear scale. The > straw man builders are the only ones who have made statements like that. I use clay. -- Wally Ball
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (02/03/85)
> In his note on animal rights and abortion, Arceneaux (jla) states > that the only difference between humans and other animals is their > relative intelligence. After stating this premise, he then rambles > on, seemingly in favor of animal rights. However, I do not accept > his premise, and neither would many others. For me, the difference > is that man possesses a soul, and animals do not. Thus even the > least intelligent human (however that is measured) is inherently > more "valuable" than the most intelligent "lower" animal. > > Since this is net.abortion, and not net.animal_rights, I won't > babble on about animal rights or the lack thereof. > > As far as devising moral yardsticks, how about deciding whether or > not a fetus possesses a soul. This is unlikely to change many minds > however, especially among those who don't believe in souls. As much as I might agree with you on many points, I have to argue this one. Many parents don't buy the child any shoes until after it is born. Are you proposing that these children be killed? -- Wally Ball
jla@usl.UUCP (Joseph L Arceneaux) (02/03/85)
As this addresses many issues mentioned in net.abortion, I am also posting
this there. However, I believe this truly belongs under net.philosophy.
It seems to me that questions such as abortion and animal rights can easily be
settled once a moral framework is defined. Once a 'moral meterstick' is
determined, such issues need merely be measured against them. Of course the
hard part is agreeing on such a structure.
The only arguable difference between our species and the other animals on the
planet is that of intelligence, but that is a difference of degree, not kind.
(And I believe the difference in degree to be relatively small.) Hence, the
ONLY basis for assigning greater moral value to humans is quantity of intelli-
gence.
If we should place such a premium on that trait known as intelligence that we
give moral superiority to our species over the others on our planet, then we
must also give such MORAL superiority to those of our species who are most in-
telligent. Such an attitude, implemented into the legal system, would no
doubt be realized by such policies as denying less intelligent people the
right to procreate, by creating [many more] sperm banks to propogate the
'good' humans, etc., etc. a la '1984.' Also, one day computers may become
more 'intelligent' than ourselves. Will we then be willing to invest them
with moral superiority over us?
Finally, suppose that we use our intelligence to destroy ourselves and most of
our world. I think that in that event we would be the least moral of the
Earth's inhabitants.
So, as you can see, I don't at all believe that our intelligence inherrently
gives us a moral edge over the other creatures of the earth. what moral back-
ground should be used, but I may have said enough for one time. Also, I'd like
to get some feed back on this initial premise. It's just not clear at all to
me that our species is inherrently better than any other. All such ideas are,
I feel, just a form of prejudice resulting from our egocentricity. So with
reference to Andrew Koenig's (hope I got that right) "simple question," I cer-
tainly cannot see the difference (morally) between killing fetus' and killing
[non-human] animals.
--
Joseph Arceneaux
USL Computer Science Department
{akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla
<all-purpose, generic disclaimer fits here>