| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2010 02:36:52 PM · #1776 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If that isn't doublespeak, I don't know what is. |
You don't know what is. |
You are confusing pain and suffering. The first is physiologic. A pelvic exam, if done correctly is not painful. The second is psychological. You cannot suffer mentally if you are not aware or capable of such mental processes. The PVS patient, therefore, neither experiences pain (the procedure is not painful), nor suffering (the patient is incapable of those mental processes), yet you still (correctly) hold that the violation is immoral. It must, therefore, be for a different reason.
It can't be the family's pain and suffering because either we didn't tell the family or the patient was an orphan with no family.
The simple scenario has forced Harris' system to contort and twist so as to arrive at the proper answer, and even then the answer is derived philosophically (logical argument about suffering) rather than empirically (the hypothetical brain scan). This reveals the failure of his contention. Not only do I disagree with his simplistic moral system, but I fully disagree with the idea Science can provide the fundamental evidence to make these decisions.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 14:37:54.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 03:14:22 PM · #1777 |
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. Second, there would be no way, in principle, for Science to give us the answer to this real world scenario. |
Harris never said we would confer to a super computer that would spit out the answers. Maybe that's where the disconnect lies? You need that authority to exist? You're used to being told what the answers are and if you accept the authority you accept the claim (e.g. Bible, C.S. Lewis, SCOTUS, etc).
Now Harris comes along and says science can help answer moral questions and you immediately expect actual answers but it was just a lecture and he's not even a scientist from what gather. He presented an idea, one that hasn't even been tried yet but you're already claiming the "system fails"? Now it's certainly understandable to be skeptical but can we please lower the bar here just a tad? You're expecting science to hit a homerun at every at bat yet your belief system can't even make contact let alone get out of the batter's box.
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 15:15:36. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 03:19:32 PM · #1778 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
I am not familiar enough with US laws to proffer any type of informed comments on this, but in Canada suicide is not a crime, but attempted suicide is. (for the very reasons you allude to)
The church's views a successful attempt as a sin, warranting excommunication and the denial of a Christian burial.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 03:29:48 PM · #1779 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Though I agree on the control aspect, religion is not the source of morality- that chicken comes after the societal egg. |
I didn't SAY religion is the source of morality. I said that the *illegality* of suicide was based on religious proscriptions, and you are arguing that *in this case* the religious proscriptions and the "cause no suffering" rule-of-morality are in alignment, and that therefore the laws exist because we think it's wrong to cause suffering. My POINT is that you can use this kind of reasoning backwards to fit just about anything into your arbitrary framework.
Stop confusing the issue: we have laws against suicide because of religious teachings, plain and simple. We don't need to delve any further than that, madness lies that way. I don't even AGREE with "laws" against suicide, I think it's BS. I think when it comes to suffering, the laws are set up so that the individual in pain has to suffer so as to alleviate the guilt/pain/suffering/whatever of the survivors, who are caught in an absolute morass of conflicting urges and understandings. Absent these laws, it would be possible to quietly, with dignity, end one's life with the aid of a physician in the case of end-stage terminal diseases, for example.
I repeat, these laws DON'T EXIST to alleviate suffering, they exist because of religious teachings, and it makes no point to go backwards and attempt to rationalize the religious teachings, especially not for you, since you have shown yourself to be anti-religion in every conceivable way up until now.
This particular mini-debate we are having shows more starkly than anything else I have seen that your participation in the discussion is by way of a game for you. That's my opinion, anyway, based on what I've seen...
R. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 03:45:31 PM · #1780 |
Originally posted by yanko:
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. Second, there would be no way, in principle, for Science to give us the answer to this real world scenario. |
Harris never said we would confer to a super computer that would spit out the answers. Maybe that's where the disconnect lies? You need that authority to exist? You're used to being told what the answers are and if you accept the authority you accept the claim (e.g. Bible, C.S. Lewis, SCOTUS, etc).
Now Harris comes along and says science can help answer moral questions and you immediately expect actual answers but it was just a lecture and he's not even a scientist from what gather. He presented an idea, one that hasn't even been tried yet but you're already claiming the "system fails"? Now it's certainly understandable to be skeptical but can we please lower the bar here just a tad? You're expecting science to hit a homerun at every at bat yet your belief system can't even make contact let alone get out of the batter's box. |
I hear ya. But if the title of the talk is "Science can answer moral questions" that's a lot more assertive than "Science, in principle, can answer moral questions". Seems a bit of a bait and switch. Plus all talks are subject to discussion and criticism. We can listen to what he has to say and judge whether there is merit and substance to it. I'm merely doing this and find the talk to be generally without substance.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 04:18:16 PM · #1781 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
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. Second, there would be no way, in principle, for Science to give us the answer to this real world scenario. |
Harris never said we would confer to a super computer that would spit out the answers. Maybe that's where the disconnect lies? You need that authority to exist? You're used to being told what the answers are and if you accept the authority you accept the claim (e.g. Bible, C.S. Lewis, SCOTUS, etc).
Now Harris comes along and says science can help answer moral questions and you immediately expect actual answers but it was just a lecture and he's not even a scientist from what gather. He presented an idea, one that hasn't even been tried yet but you're already claiming the "system fails"? Now it's certainly understandable to be skeptical but can we please lower the bar here just a tad? You're expecting science to hit a homerun at every at bat yet your belief system can't even make contact let alone get out of the batter's box. |
I hear ya. But if the title of the talk is "Science can answer moral questions" that's a lot more assertive than "Science, in principle, can answer moral questions". Seems a bit of a bait and switch. Plus all talks are subject to discussion and criticism. We can listen to what he has to say and judge whether there is merit and substance to it. I'm merely doing this and find the talk to be generally without substance. |
You're right, it's just a starting point. As for the title, yeah I took it as a garden variety marketing trick. Maybe he should have tried something on the lighter side like these. Personally, I think Google does have the answer or will someday. :P
Message edited by author 2010-03-31 16:18:34. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 04:49:58 PM · #1782 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I repeat, these laws DON'T EXIST to alleviate suffering, they exist because of religious teachings... |
Religious teachings exist to exert authority. Our natural aversion to suffering pre-dates any religion and had to be included for such doctrine to be taken seriously (who would believe their God wants people to suffer). Laws DO exist to alleviate suffering— often in direct opposition to religion. Oh, yeah... religion prompted anti-discrimination laws, women's suffrage, abolition, gay marriage, the separation of church and state, freedom to practice competing religions, etc. You're hilarious. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:06:33 PM · #1783 |
Originally posted by Louis:
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.) |
I agree that Jason has apparently misunderstood Harris' use of the word "conscious." When Harris used the phrase "the well-being of conscious creatures," or the phrase "conscious experience," I took "conscious" to mean self-aware/time-aware/universe-aware/morality-aware, not conscious in the sense of merely awake and capable of perceiving stimuli. If the word is understood in that context, then there really is no distinction to be made between Jason's three scenarios. The women in all three scenarios are members of the human race and therefore conscious creatures, and violating them in the contexts described is still violation and does not, as Harris would say, promote human well-being and the flourishing of human societies.
I also don't think Harris has worked out a "system" as such, at least not in his lecture. He was talking in very general terms, although admittedly I read his rebuttal to critics at 4 o'clock in the morning and most of it didn't penetrate, so maybe I missed something. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 05:46:13 PM · #1784 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Louis:
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.) |
I agree that Jason has apparently misunderstood Harris' use of the word "conscious." When Harris used the phrase "the well-being of conscious creatures," or the phrase "conscious experience," I took "conscious" to mean self-aware/time-aware/universe-aware/morality-aware, not conscious in the sense of merely awake and capable of perceiving stimuli. If the word is understood in that context, then there really is no distinction to be made between Jason's three scenarios. The women in all three scenarios are members of the human race and therefore conscious creatures, and violating them in the contexts described is still violation and does not, as Harris would say, promote human well-being and the flourishing of human societies.
I also don't think Harris has worked out a "system" as such, at least not in his lecture. He was talking in very general terms, although admittedly I read his rebuttal to critics at 4 o'clock in the morning and most of it didn't penetrate, so maybe I missed something. |
I understand you Judith, but you have to agree that someone in a persistent vegitative state is not "self-aware/time-aware/universe-aware/morality-aware" and has no hope of becoming so for the rest of their life. That provides an uncomfortable "loophole" in Harris' simplified ideas. Again, your paragraph seems, to me, to be trying to warp the idea so as to arrive at preconceived conclusions. Why do we need to play this game?
I agree with you that Harris didn't work out a system, but he implied that one either existed or one could be created in the future. That's disingenous to me. Someone who was only peripherally listening or doesn't apply critical thinking could walk away thinking, "hot damn! I knew science had the answer to everything!" This is wrong. This is dangerous. This is what I'm reacting to.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:13:57 PM · #1785 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Louis:
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.) |
I agree that Jason has apparently misunderstood Harris' use of the word "conscious." When Harris used the phrase "the well-being of conscious creatures," or the phrase "conscious experience," I took "conscious" to mean self-aware/time-aware/universe-aware/morality-aware, not conscious in the sense of merely awake and capable of perceiving stimuli. If the word is understood in that context, then there really is no distinction to be made between Jason's three scenarios. The women in all three scenarios are members of the human race and therefore conscious creatures, and violating them in the contexts described is still violation and does not, as Harris would say, promote human well-being and the flourishing of human societies.
I also don't think Harris has worked out a "system" as such, at least not in his lecture. He was talking in very general terms, although admittedly I read his rebuttal to critics at 4 o'clock in the morning and most of it didn't penetrate, so maybe I missed something. |
I understand you Judith, but you have to agree that someone in a persistent vegitative state is not "self-aware/time-aware/universe-aware/morality-aware" and has no hope of becoming so for the rest of their life. That provides an uncomfortable "loophole" in Harris' simplified ideas. Again, your paragraph seems, to me, to be trying to warp the idea so as to arrive at preconceived conclusions. Why do we need to play this game?
I agree with you that Harris didn't work out a system, but he implied that one either existed or one could be created in the future. That's disingenous to me. Someone who was only peripherally listening or doesn't apply critical thinking could walk away thinking, "hot damn! I knew science had the answer to everything!" This is wrong. This is dangerous. This is what I'm reacting to. |
Well, again, maybe I missed something, but I'm not sure that anyone had the reaction that you're reacting to. I'm also not sure I understand what you think is so dangerous (this is the second time you've made that statement in this discussion).
With respect to the word "conscious" or the phrase "conscious creatures," again I think he meant conscious as in levels of consciousness, levels of awareness, or, as he put it, creatures with rich interior lives. I'm not playing a game, I'm honestly stating what my understanding is. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:29:43 PM · #1786 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Someone who was only peripherally listening or doesn't apply critical thinking could walk away thinking, "hot damn! I knew science had the answer to everything!" This is wrong. This is dangerous. |
That's quite ironic. Hilarious, even, given the amount of critical thinking required for religious belief, and the real world, actual, current dangers represented by faith. I submit you are worried about the wrong thing. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:29:58 PM · #1787 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Well, again, maybe I missed something, but I'm not sure that anyone had the reaction that you're reacting to. I'm also not sure I understand what you think is so dangerous (this is the second time you've made that statement in this discussion).
With respect to the word "conscious" or the phrase "conscious creatures," again I think he meant conscious as in levels of consciousness, levels of awareness, or, as he put it, creatures with rich interior lives. I'm not playing a game, I'm honestly stating what my understanding is. |
History has a way of repeating itself. Eugenics was the brave, new world where science was going to better the human race and led to moral distinctions where some people were "less human" than others and thus not deserving of the same basic rights. The German fascist state (dare I say "Nazi" and risk invoking Godwin?) was a natural outgrowth of such thinking.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:31:26 PM · #1788 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Someone who was only peripherally listening or doesn't apply critical thinking could walk away thinking, "hot damn! I knew science had the answer to everything!" This is wrong. This is dangerous. |
That's quite ironic. Hilarious, even, given the amount of critical thinking required for religious belief, and the real world, actual, current dangers represented by faith. I submit you are worried about the wrong thing. |
Hehe. well, that could be true, but has nothing to do with the current point. :P You just aren't happy because I've thrown tomatoes at one of the High Priests of atheism! (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:37:13 PM · #1789 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
History has a way of repeating itself. Eugenics was the brave, new world where science was going to better the human race and led to moral distinctions where some people were "less human" than others and thus not deserving of the same basic rights. The German fascist state (dare I say "Nazi" and risk invoking Godwin?) was a natural outgrowth of such thinking. |
The talk quite clearly advocates the flourishing of human communities and the abatement of suffering, and the proposed vehicles are economics, philosophy, and brain sciences. This does not automatically translate to eugenics, and then Nazism (or Communism, or [vernacular] hedonism, or any other bugaboo anyone wants to scare the children with).
Anything can devolve into something dark and terrible, even the most vaulted of human intentions. As a Christian, you of all people should understand this, since you live in tradition that is dark with blood and rife with prejudice. This does not mean that everything will fall to the dark side -- or even that there aren't systems with the potential to be less prone to decay. |
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:38:24 PM · #1790 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hehe. well, that could be true, but has nothing to do with the current point. :P You just aren't happy because I've thrown tomatoes at one of the High Priests of atheism! (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon, don't answer like this. It isn't helpful at all. |
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:40:37 PM · #1791 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
History has a way of repeating itself. Eugenics was the brave, new world where science was going to better the human race and led to moral distinctions where some people were "less human" than others and thus not deserving of the same basic rights. The German fascist state (dare I say "Nazi" and risk invoking Godwin?) was a natural outgrowth of such thinking. |
The talk quite clearly advocates the flourishing of human communities and the abatement of suffering, and the proposed vehicles are economics, philosophy, and brain sciences. This does not automatically translate to eugenics, and then Nazism (or Communism, or [vernacular] hedonism, or any other bugaboo anyone wants to scare the children with).
Anything can devolve into something dark and terrible, even the most vaulted of human intentions. As a Christian, you of all people should understand this, since you live in tradition that is dark with blood and rife with prejudice. This does not mean that everything will fall to the dark side -- or even that there aren't systems with the potential to be less prone to decay. |
A valid point. Judith just asked me why I worry and I told her. You and I both hope it will never come to that.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:43:17 PM · #1792 |
Who votes to suspend this talk while all the hub-bub is going on? It just seems wrong to argue when the future of DPC is in the balance.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2010 07:45:18 PM · #1793 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Who votes to suspend this talk while all the hub-bub is going on? It just seems wrong to argue when the future of DPC is in the balance. |
You have my vote. Second the motion. Is it so moved?
R. |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 10:57:39 AM · #1794 |
| Okay . . . so the future of DPC appears to be secure. You all may resume the bickering, I'll go make the popcorn. |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 11:16:32 AM · #1795 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Okay . . . so the future of DPC appears to be secure. You all may resume the bickering, I'll go make the popcorn. |
Thanx, I'm doing up a batch of tortilla chips actually...
R. |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 11:33:42 AM · #1796 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Thanx, I'm doing up a batch of tortilla chips actually... |
That's nacho best argument. |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 11:36:34 AM · #1797 |
| Jeez. Somebody aim the salsa bottle at him for that one. :P |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 11:37:30 AM · #1798 |
| I sense that needs splaining. :-( In previous post, replace salsa with seltzer. Now I feel old. |
|
|
|
04/02/2010 11:55:16 AM · #1799 |
I don't know what else to argue. I think I proved all my points. :D
|
|
|
|
04/02/2010 12:01:37 PM · #1800 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know what else to argue. I think I proved all my points. :D |
Sanity? ;-P |
|
