| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2010 09:01:18 AM · #1751 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bonus question for the evening:
Sam had this to say in his talk, "If we are more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of happiness and suffering." and "there is no version of human morality...that is not a concern about conscious experience and its changes."
With this in mind, comment on where the following actions fall on the moral/immoral continuum. Are they equivalent?
Medical students practicing pelvic exams on someone in a persistant vegetative state.
Medical students practicing pelvic exams on someone under general anesthesia waiting for a simple surgery.
Medical students practicing pelvic exams on a normal adult without their explicit consent. |
Simply put, there are simply too many issues that are not addressed in this scenario for me to render a decision in this regard. Situational factors such as,
- the genders of the people involved,
- the facilities where the exams were being performed,
- whether the student is supervised,
- whether any attempts were made to obtain an explicit "and informedconsent,
...all of these are issues of consideration when endeavouring to determine the morality of questions of this nature... and there are others I am sure.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Follow up bonus question:
How would Harris' hypothetical brain scanner view each action and what would this say about their moral quality? |
Again, given the limited information provided, and not knowing the parameters of this exercise nor the mind set of the persons involved, it is impossible to forecast the results of such an undertaking.
I realize that this does not even come close to answering the question asked... but I am considering a career in politics and this is my way of practicing....hehehe :O)
Have a great day,
Ray |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 09:16:58 AM · #1752 |
| What Judith said across the board— especially the creepy part. Given the context of your question, I can only surmise that you're trying to show that our consideration of morality doesn't change with consciousness, but the effort is horribly off-base. We feel empathy toward our fellow primates because we believe these species experience a greater degree of happiness or suffering. Picking out individuals with lesser degrees of consciousness to suggest we might feel less empathy toward them is tantamount to saying they're less human. Shades of Josef Mengele. *shudder* |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:03:23 AM · #1753 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Bonus question for the evening:
Sam had this to say in his talk, "If we are more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of happiness and suffering." and "there is no version of human morality...that is not a concern about conscious experience and its changes."
With this in mind, comment on where the following actions fall on the moral/immoral continuum. Are they equivalent?
Medical students practicing pelvic exams on someone in a persistant vegetative state.
Medical students practicing pelvic exams on someone under general anesthesia waiting for a simple surgery.
Medical students practicing pelvic exams on a normal adult without their explicit consent.
Follow up bonus question:
How would Harris' hypothetical brain scanner view each action and what would this say about their moral quality? |
Logically, interfering with a person in a way that we *know* they will never consciously comprehend is not something that directly increases human suffering. If we could be sure that a person was brain dead, then the morality is distinctly less certain.
However, there are other reasons than directly incurred human suffering in the equation. For example, indirectly incurred suffering (e.g. the reaction of relatives) and latent suffering (e.g. the effect on others should this behaviour become normalised and then be extended carelessly or recklessly to conscious people).
We do not need to fall back to something arbitrary, like the perceived sanctity of the human body.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:13:46 AM · #1754 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
What Judith said across the board— especially the creepy part. Given the context of your question, I can only surmise that you're trying to show that our consideration of morality doesn't change with consciousness, but the effort is horribly off-base. We feel empathy toward our fellow primates because we believe these species experience a greater degree of happiness or suffering. Picking out individuals with lesser degrees of consciousness to suggest we might feel less empathy toward them is tantamount to saying they're less human. Shades of Josef Mengele. *shudder* |
Oh, I totally agree. I'm trying show some uncomfortable conclusions to Harris' ideas. He clearly said there was a continuum of concern from rocks to ants to primates to humans. He also said this was explicitly because of their "degree of (capacity for) happiness and suffering". While the points on his continuum make the statement seem obvious, when we look at a more nuanced gradation, it gives us the opposite feeling. To take it further, Harris' hypothetical brain scanner for suffering would likely tell us that the PVS patient and the one under general anesthesia would have little to no suffering (thus implying the action is somehow less immoral).
In my view all the acts are immoral (and all have occurred probably many, many times. This is not a hypothetical. The last one probably occurs the least, but I was thinking about med students being falsely presented as doctors in which case the patient thinks they are consenting to an exam by a doctor). However, I do not think Harris' system would back this up and I really do not think Science could, even in principle, reveal this to us. The reason it came to me, Judith, is because I've heard ethical discussions about exactly these cases and I do know they are real life scenarios.
Ray, just assume all the secondary variables are the same for each case. The point was to posit different conscious states in the victim because this, to Harris, seems to be what is important.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 11:17:12.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:17:39 AM · #1755 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm trying show some uncomfortable conclusions to Harris' ideas. He clearly said there was a continuum of concern from rocks to ants to primates to humans. He also said this was explicitly because of their "degree of (capacity for) happiness and suffering". |
As I said, you're WAYYY off-base. If you can't understand that, seek help. Seriously. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:18:54 AM · #1756 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Logically, interfering with a person in a way that we *know* they will never consciously comprehend is not something that directly increases human suffering. If we could be sure that a person was brain dead, then the morality is distinctly less certain.
However, there are other reasons than directly incurred human suffering in the equation. For example, indirectly incurred suffering (e.g. the reaction of relatives) and latent suffering (e.g. the effect on others should this behaviour become normalised and then be extended carelessly or recklessly to conscious people).
We do not need to fall back to something arbitrary, like the perceived sanctity of the human body. |
Good answer. Mine would be similar, and I would suggest that Jason has introduced a red herring by so restricting his use of the word "conscious". In the end, all we need ask is, "Has your scenario engendered suffering," with the understanding that the answer must be complete. Apparently, it's even engendered suffering in the participants here, who find it distinctly chilling. (I don't know what the "hypothetical brain scanner" is, or that it would be used in any way he's imagined.)
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 11:19:21. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:21:38 AM · #1757 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He clearly said there was a continuum of concern from rocks to ants to primates to humans. He also said this was explicitly because of their "degree of (capacity for) happiness and suffering". |
And he also said that, should we be wrong about the interior lives of insects as revealed by some future scientific process, we would necessarily have to alter our moral position on the matter. He admits of no natural continuum. There is no reason to present your scenario as a natural consequence of Harris' argument.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 11:23:27. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:24:18 AM · #1758 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm trying show some uncomfortable conclusions to Harris' ideas. He clearly said there was a continuum of concern from rocks to ants to primates to humans. He also said this was explicitly because of their "degree of (capacity for) happiness and suffering". |
As I said, you're WAYYY off-base. If you can't understand that, seek help. Seriously. |
Shannon, don't answer like this. It isn't helpful at all. If you think I'm WAYYY off-base, then take the time to show me how.
I wasn't saying we show less empathy for these individuals. In fact, I was saying the opposite. We show more empathy, if anything. However, this stands in direct, stark contrast to Harris' statement and that is what I'm pointing out. If suffering is the standard, then there are clear differences in the examples. His system would grade the examples as different. Most people I know (and who have responded on this thread) lump them all as the same. Ergo, his method fails.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:26:25 AM · #1759 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He clearly said there was a continuum of concern from rocks to ants to primates to humans. He also said this was explicitly because of their "degree of (capacity for) happiness and suffering". |
And he also said that, should we be wrong about the interior lives of insects as revealed by some future scientific process, we would necessarily have to alter our moral position on the matter. He admits of no natural continuum. There is no reason to present your scenario as a natural consequence of Harris' argument. |
Yes, but we would alter it because the insects would suddenly find themselves higher up on the continuum, not that the continuum doesn't exist or isn't valid (in his mind).
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 11:43:21 AM · #1760 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If suffering is the standard, then there are clear differences in the examples. His system would grade the examples as different. Most people I know (and who have responded on this thread) lump them all as the same. Ergo, his method fails. |
I don't understand this at all. You'll have to reduce it more accurately.
Also, in showing how his argument fails, you'll have to fill the void you've created with the one you think works. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 12:01:50 PM · #1761 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If suffering is the standard, then there are clear differences in the examples. His system would grade the examples as different. Most people I know (and who have responded on this thread) lump them all as the same. Ergo, his method fails. |
I don't understand this at all. You'll have to reduce it more accurately.
Also, in showing how his argument fails, you'll have to fill the void you've created with the one you think works. |
OK, let's see. Let me try this way:
Harris' system (the scientific one) can be boiled down to this:
1) The avoidance of suffering (or the encouragement of "wellbeing") is the standard for moral decision making.
2) There is a qualitative difference in the suffering of a rock, an ant, a primate, and a human based on their capacity for happiness and suffering. (however, as you said, each creature's position on this continuum could change with increased knowledge about their inherent capacity).
Based on these two rules, I have tried to present a scenario which has two consequences:
1) The application of the rules above lead to a different result than how we actually feel.
and probably more importantly, 2) Scientific experiment (with the hypothetical brain scanner that Harris mentions at the end of his talk) would provide results which would make us uncomfortable or not be able to provide results at all.
In the scenario I presented, everything is the same except the conscious state of the victim. Someone in a persistant vegetative state, as far as we currently know, has less capacity for "happiness and suffering". Likewise with the person under general anesthesia. This implies they would fall lower on the scale of concern we have for them. Everybody correctly shuddered at this and we know this is a scary proposition.
In the scenario I also cannot fathom how science, even in principle, could present data that would indicate all three acts were equally immoral. Harris said the "facts of morality" are to be found in the brain, but he did not consider brains which are not functioning properly.
Does that help? I don't need to fill the void at all. I'm just here to show that Harris' proposition that Science can answer moral questions is quite lacking.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 12:04:30.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 12:16:24 PM · #1762 |
Just out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me how a moral system based on the prevention or alleviation of suffering is very much different, fundamentally, from the philosophy that's called "hedonism", where what brings pleasure is "good" and what causes displeasure or pain is "bad"?
I repudiate that system, I swear I do; whatever Harris is talking about is not what I call "morality"; you have to jump through all sorts of hoops (Doc has just revealed one problem area) to make this system "work" with what we perceive, in our spirits, as "moral".
I could go on and on about this, but I'm not feeling like getting attacked today, so I won't.
R. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 12:50:21 PM · #1763 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the scenario I presented, everything is the same except the conscious state of the victim. Someone in a persistant vegetative state, as far as we currently know, has less capacity for "happiness and suffering". Likewise with the person under general anesthesia. This implies they would fall lower on the scale of concern we have for them. |
Harris' statement was general— humans show more empathy toward other primates than carp or dust mites because the latter seem to have less capacity for pain and suffering. The observation does not necessarily extend to differences between a smart and vegetative chimpanzee (Straw Man?). The scenario you presented is also general— such an intrusive and personal procedure would be regarded as immoral without consent even on a corpse due to the potential suffering imposed on family members. Note, however, that people might NOT consider the same procedure immoral if performed on a chimp (obviously without consent) since there's little evidence to suggest the chimp's relatives would be pained by the violation. Thus, you unwittingly confirm Harris' argument. Oops. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 01:01:54 PM · #1764 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The scenario you presented is also general— such an intrusive and personal procedure would be regarded as immoral without consent even on a corpse due to the potential suffering imposed on family members. |
See "jumping through hoops" above... It's not enough to posit that the gratuitous invasion of another's body is immoral in and of itself, apparently; so you're reduced to bringing in "family members" do do the suffering for those who cannot suffer. What about if the corpse is of someone with no living relatives? Ah, I suppose his friends will suffer/would suffer if they only knew he was being probed?
R. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 01:04:32 PM · #1765 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
See "jumping through hoops" above... It's not enough to posit that the gratuitous invasion of another's body is immoral in and of itself, apparently; so you're reduced to bringing in "family members" do do the suffering for those who cannot suffer. |
We do this all the time, otherwise suicide might not be a crime. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 01:09:27 PM · #1766 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
See "jumping through hoops" above... It's not enough to posit that the gratuitous invasion of another's body is immoral in and of itself, apparently; so you're reduced to bringing in "family members" do do the suffering for those who cannot suffer. |
We do this all the time, otherwise suicide might not be a crime. |
Yah, but we're not talking about crime, we're talking about morality. Anyway, you're kidding yourself if you think THAT is why suicide is a "crime": it's a "crime" because the church thinks it's immoral, that only God is allowed to choose when a person dies, so both murder & suicide are verboten, and the suffering of survivors has squadoosh to do with it.
There's a LOT of people who think that calling suicide a crime is beyond ridiculous, if only because it's sort of hard to punish someone who's already dead...
R. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 01:12:39 PM · #1767 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the scenario I presented, everything is the same except the conscious state of the victim. Someone in a persistant vegetative state, as far as we currently know, has less capacity for "happiness and suffering". Likewise with the person under general anesthesia. This implies they would fall lower on the scale of concern we have for them. |
Harris' statement was general— humans show more empathy toward other primates than carp or dust mites because the latter seem to have less capacity for pain and suffering. The observation does not necessarily extend to differences between a smart and vegetative chimpanzee (Straw Man?). The scenario you presented is also general— such an intrusive and personal procedure would be regarded as immoral without consent even on a corpse due to the potential suffering imposed on family members. Note, however, that people might NOT consider the same procedure immoral if performed on a chimp (obviously without consent) since there's little evidence to suggest the chimp's relatives would be pained by the violation. Thus, you unwittingly confirm Harris' argument. Oops. |
1. If the observation cannot be extended to other examples, why even make it? It's completely unhelpful unless we are trying to decipher whether or not some action is moral when performed upon a rock (which is obvious anyway). If, on the other hand, you are nuancing the observation to allow for the proper result when applied to unconscious or handicapped individuals, then I would declare this to be ad hoc.
2. Even if we consider the pain of the families, that would be additive to the pain of the conscious adult in the third example and thus still make the other two examples "less" immoral. The scenarios are exactly the same except for the conscious state of the victim. You cannot claim somehow that there is not more suffering when the victim is fully conscious than when they are unconscious or permanently brain damaged.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 01:18:21 PM · #1768 |
| Circular argument. The "church" thinks something is immoral due to their interpretation (subject to change) of what Biblical authors claimed was immoral, which was in turn based on those authors' opinions before they ever described such a God... i.e. the inherent HUMAN aversion to suffering. People thousands of years ago still valued life and were pained by a loved one's death. Such concepts weren't suddenly introduced as a novel thought in the gospels. :-/ |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 01:27:05 PM · #1769 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Circular argument. The "church" thinks something is immoral due to their interpretation (subject to change) of what Biblical authors claimed was immoral, which was in turn based on those authors' opinions before they ever described such a God... i.e. the inherent HUMAN aversion to suffering. People thousands of years ago still valued life and were pained by a loved one's death. Such concepts weren't suddenly introduced as a novel thought in the gospels. :-/ |
Well, that IS a circular argument but that's missing the point. I mean, at that level EVERYthing is circular. You can break down any long-held position or belief trying to track where it came from, but it doesn't mean much in the end.
Look, church doctrine, Catholic doctrine anyway, tells us that only God has the right to make these decisions, and it's not about alleviating suffering, no matter how much you try to force it through your hoop, it's about control, plain and simple. Always has been, always will be until something dramatic changes. You can look at it from your post-modern perspective and theorize all you want about the motivations of the founders of the church etc etc, but it's irrelevant.
R. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 01:40:53 PM · #1770 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1. If the observation cannot be extended to other examples, why even make it? |
I said it was a general observation that does not necessarily extend to individual examples. "Humans believe killing is wrong" may not extend to the individual belief of a mass murderer or soldier either, but that doesn't invalidate the general observation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even if we consider the pain of the families, that would be additive to the pain of the conscious adult in the third example and thus still make the other two examples "less" immoral. |
Society deems all three immoral due to the general taboo of violating a body (whether it's painful to the individual, family, friends, neighbors or even the psyche of complete strangers). There may be well be degrees of immorality within those examples, but so what? Harris never said PERSONAL suffering, which is all your example tried to correlate. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 01:48:44 PM · #1771 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1. If the observation cannot be extended to other examples, why even make it? |
I said it was a general observation that does not necessarily extend to individual examples. "Humans believe killing is wrong" may not extend to the individual belief of a mass murderer or soldier either, but that doesn't invalidate the general observation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even if we consider the pain of the families, that would be additive to the pain of the conscious adult in the third example and thus still make the other two examples "less" immoral. |
Society deems all three immoral due to the general taboo of violating a body (whether it's painful to the individual, family, friends, neighbors or even the psyche of complete strangers). There may be well be degrees of immorality within those examples, but so what? Harris never said PERSONAL suffering, which is all your example tried to correlate. |
So what? The point is the system fails to come up with results that you and I know to be true. Second, there would be no way, in principle, for Science to give us the answer to this real world scenario.
The suffering of the families is easily obviated by not telling them. So now it becomes more moral not to let the families know this is going on...
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 01:57:45 PM · #1772 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, that IS a circular argument but that's missing the point. I mean, at that level EVERYthing is circular. |
Nope. At some point humans came to respect the body more than they had in earlier forms. Cannibalism was apparently common prior to the Upper Paleolithic period. Burial was not. We evolved as social animals, and religious principles were developed to "retroactively" explain why things are (whether earthquakes or the taboo against murder). Evolved changes in morality are readily apparent even between old and new testaments. Though I agree on the control aspect, religion is not the source of morality- that chicken comes after the societal egg. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 02:11:34 PM · #1773 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So what? The point is the system fails to come up with results that you and I know to be true. |
Such a stance would make "thou shalt not kill" equally irrelevant.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Second, there would be no way, in principle, for Science to give us the answer to this real world scenario. |
Baloney. Science could easily demonstrate suffering caused by such acts through the reactions of those affected.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The suffering of the families is easily obviated by not telling them. So now it becomes more moral not to let the families know this is going on... |
Violating a body is immoral in principle because it demonstrably causes pain to the person and/or others. It remains immoral in principle even if they aren't aware of that pain. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 02:14:58 PM · #1774 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Violating a body is immoral in principle because it demonstrably causes pain to the person and/or others. It remains immoral in principle even if they aren't aware of that pain. |
hehe. If that isn't doublespeak, I don't know what is.
I think I've made my point to those who are thinking clearly that Harris' talk is dangerous and the last time we let Science control morality we wound up with a program of eugenics. I don't need to keep belaboring the point for those who can't keep up.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 02:27:06 PM · #1775 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If that isn't doublespeak, I don't know what is. |
You don't know what is. |
|
