Register to Comment
Page 1066 of 1261 FirstFirst ... 66 566 966 1016 105610641065106610671068 1076 1116 1166 ... LastLast
Results 10,651 to 10,660 of 12610
Like Tree4259Likes
  1. #10651
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline
    StarryPlough01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    9,293

    Quote Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
    ^ What I mean by "representative of" is that it is a working instance of a lion consciousness. Nothing more. Nothing less. It might change in the extent of that capacity over it's life (up and down) just like humans do (medical issues, maturity, dementia, mental illness, genetic disabilities, and much more) but we still treat them as instances of the type.

    If two babies are born at the same time beside each other, and one of them is severely mentally retarded and will always be........... and the other is fully statistically "normal" in every way......... I would not, for example, suggest either one of them has more of a "right to life" than the other. And I would likely say that again if I came back 5 year later and met them, 10 years, 20 years, and 50 years. I simply do not argue on potentials. I argue solely on what is THERE.

    So I am afraid how I really feel is entirely independent of what you are "ready to accept" about how I really feel.



    Well conveniently here you left out, or demand to be left out, the mediating factor in my choice. I would likely choose to save the fetus in MOST scenarios because I would be considering the well being and desires of the mother. And her wishes, and associated well being, associated with the continued well being of her developing future would of course take precedence for me over the well being of a frog who wants nothing in life but to sit on a leaf and flick its tongue at insects.

    But in the contrived and specific situation YOU describe...... I not only find the frog more morally important, but I would think continuing with your scenario to be positively immoral. A) Because of using an essentially dead body as an incubator and B) because contriving to bring a human person into being who has no relatives or connection with this world to be a horrible idea. You end with the line "no one personally concerned with the death of this fetus" but I would be more concerned with "no one personally concerned with the LIFE we would create" as being the situation we would be forcing on the person we aim to create.
    Nozzie, I think you are pulling TS's chain about the frog.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #10652
    nozzferrahhtoo nozzferrahhtoo is offline
    nozzferrahhtoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,270

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    I'll come back to this again. "Conveniently"? Surely you understand that it is necessary to leave this out in order to deal with the basic point - the value or "moral worth" etc. you put on the life of a frog vis a vis a 16 week foetus?
    The fact simply remains that I do not place any moral or ethical concern at all on a 16 week old fetus. We could just as coherently be comparing my moral and ethical concern for an adult frog to a rock. And we would be having the exact same conversation.

    For me an entity either has the faculty of sentience and/or consciousness.... or it does not. If it does not, I hold no moral and ethical concern for it. If it does then the moral and ethical concern I have for it is species wide identical. It does no go up and down over the lifespan of the individual entity. Be it 1 minute old or 1 century old, be it entirely brain normal, or somehow brain damaged...... it remains for me constant.

    Which is why, as I said for example, the right to life in my mind of a normal adult, a brain damaged adult, a coma patient adult...... are all the same. A compromised faculty, such as in a coma patient, has no less a right to life than anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    Look, I can come up with other scenarios.
    It would likely be a waste of time. The scenarios can get ever more contrived and specific until such time as you manage to illicit SOME concession out of me (whatever one it is you are seeking, I do not know). But that concession, whatever it might be, would be so specific to that scenario as to have gained (or lost) nothing for either of us.

    But the kind of conditions you propose adding simply bring other moral agents into the equation for whom I DO hold more concern than the frog. So at that point instantly any intention you had to question my moral concern SOLELY for a fetus to SOLELY a frog...... would be off the table. So again you would have gained nothing.

    So while your intentions are still opaque to me at this point, I can not see that the current moves you are making are likely to attain them.

    But if you are trying to establish a fantastical "all other things equal" type scenario to ask me if I TRUELY do have more moral and ethical concern for an adult frog than a 12 week old fetus.... then save your digits and simply accept that yes, I do. What I opened this post with holds true.

    You might as well be asking me to compare a rock to a frog. Because, again in the fantastical scenario where we are SOLELY considering those two entities in ISOLATION from all else............ that is indeed how I view it. In isolation from other moral and ethical concerns, a 12 week old fetus is the moral equivalent of a rock to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by StarryPlough01 View Post
    Nozzie, I think you are pulling TS's chain about the frog.
    Not intentionally no. But I genuinely am not sure what point (s)he is trying to uncover with this line of inquiry. It SEEMS (s)he is just testing my claim that I hold more moral and ethical concern for a sentient entity than an entirely non-sentient one. And the fact is I do.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #10653
    talkingshop talkingshop is offline
    talkingshop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    18,043

    Quote Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
    But if you are trying to establish a fantastical "all other things equal" type scenario to ask me if I TRUELY do have more moral and ethical concern for an adult frog than a 12 week old fetus.... then save your digits and simply accept that yes, I do. What I opened this post with holds true.

    You might as well be asking me to compare a rock to a frog. Because, again in the fantastical scenario where we are SOLELY considering those two entities in ISOLATION from all else............ that is indeed how I view it. In isolation from other moral and ethical concerns, a 12 week old fetus is the moral equivalent of a rock to me.

    Not intentionally no. But I genuinely am not sure what point (s)he is trying to uncover with this line of inquiry. It SEEMS (s)he is just testing my claim that I hold more moral and ethical concern for a sentient entity than an entirely non-sentient one. And the fact is I do.
    (The last piece of your post was meant to be in some other post, I assume).

    You could have saved your digits too, with a shorter reply. You are correct, I did want to just get confirmation/clarification from you that leaving extraneous factors aside, you would if you had to chose a life, chose the life of a frog rather than the life of a 16 weeks foetus. And now I'm clear.

    As I said, I think that this is deeply counter-intuitive, it not what most people's intuitions and moral sense would tell them is "right", and I think the position of yours undermines your entire argument.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #10654
    nozzferrahhtoo nozzferrahhtoo is offline
    nozzferrahhtoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,270

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    (The last piece of your post was meant to be in some other post, I assume).
    Which part? The "not intentionall no" part? I quite often amalgamate replies to multiple users into a single post. A habit I picked up from two other forums which frown upon users making sequential posts. I see no harm in it, as each user can see which bits are replying to them from what I quoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    You could have saved your digits too, with a shorter reply. You are correct, I did want to just get confirmation/clarification from you that leaving extraneous factors aside, you would if you had to chose a life, chose the life of a frog rather than the life of a 16 weeks foetus. And now I'm clear.
    I am not sure being short is in my nature. I prefer to be understood. And I find, when people are genuinely interested in reading, they understand me better in 100 words than they do in 10. It also likely comes from the size of the tomes on Science, Philosophy and Morality that I study and read. When you read books going into 1000s of pages while forming your ideas..... distilling those ideas into 2 sentences tends to be beyond you.

    So I have given up trying to be short. I focus instead on trying to be CLEAR. Perhaps I am a relic in the Twitter and Vime generation and their eroded attention spans. But so be it. I can live with that

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    As I said, I think that this is deeply counter-intuitive, it not what most people's intuitions and moral sense would tell them is "right", and I think the position of yours undermines your entire argument.
    It does not undermine the strength of the argument. It MIGHT undermine my ability to get others to accept or even adopt my positions. But that is a different thing. I would prefer to be consistent AND honest first, and win people to my position second. I think too many people share those priorities but REVERSED.

    But I do not tend to explain my position in terms of fetuses and frogs. I tend to explain it in ways that are clearer and easier to accept. But if someone, testing perhaps if I am consistent in my views, brings it down to the level of fetuses and frogs they are going to find that I am consistent and honest. Even if that consistency and honesty risks losing the audience who are otherwise "on my side" up to that point.

    But as I said, and will likely keep saying, I mediate moral and ethical concern on entities having some level of the faculty of sentience, consciousness and subjective awareness. An entity WITH that faculty, in any operational capacity, shows up on the moral radar. An entity without it, does not.

    And so I am not speaking lightly when I say a 12 week old fetus is the moral equivalent of a rock to me. They both simply do not show up on the radar/scan. Certainly not in the face of the people going "oh but look at it's ikkle wikkle fingers!"
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #10655
    petaljam petaljam is offline
    petaljam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19,093

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    As I said, I think that this is deeply counter-intuitive, it not what most people's intuitions and moral sense would tell them is "right", and I think the position of yours undermines your entire argument.
    Why?

    Genuine question.

    And full disclosure : I feel I would have more ethical concern for the foetus in your scenario, but I suspect that it's as much an emotional response of the type Nozzferrahtoo referred to earlier as anything else, and on any case, definitely gut instinct rather than a logically thought out evaluation. And since it requires a ridiculously contrived hypothetical scenario to get to that, one could just as easily contrive other scenarios which would go the other way : what if merely to keep the non sentient foetus alive it was necessary to inflict horrendous pain on the conscious frog for six or seven months? Etc. All rather pointless, TBH.

    But I am interested in what it is about Nozferrahtoo's ability not to react emotionally to your scenario that makes you think that this undermines his "entire argument"? I don't see how it makes any difference myself.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #10656
    Lumpy Talbot Lumpy Talbot is online now

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    11,031
    Twitter
    @

    Tonic is going to go apeshyte when he realises that the Constitutional Assembly is reluctant to accept religious argumentation as 'factual'.

    Do these people not know how Science-based the religious are?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #10657
    talkingshop talkingshop is offline
    talkingshop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    18,043

    Quote Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
    It does not undermine the strength of the argument. It MIGHT undermine my ability to get others to accept or even adopt my positions. But that is a different thing. I would prefer to be consistent AND honest first, and win people to my position second. I think too many people share those priorities but REVERSED.

    But I do not tend to explain my position in terms of fetuses and frogs. I tend to explain it in ways that are clearer and easier to accept. But if someone, testing perhaps if I am consistent in my views, brings it down to the level of fetuses and frogs they are going to find that I am consistent and honest. Even if that consistency and honesty risks losing the audience who are otherwise "on my side" up to that point.

    But as I said, and will likely keep saying, I mediate moral and ethical concern on entities having some level of the faculty of sentience, consciousness and subjective awareness. An entity WITH that faculty, in any operational capacity, shows up on the moral radar. An entity without it, does not.

    And so I am not speaking lightly when I say a 12 week old fetus is the moral equivalent of a rock to me. They both simply do not show up on the radar/scan. Certainly not in the face of the people going "oh but look at it's ikkle wikkle fingers!"
    Fair enough - your argument convinces yourself, but I don't think that is it a good argument, or that it will convince others.

    Your argument goes something like this I think; in deciding whether it is ethical to take foetal life, we should look at how and why we value life generally, and as you have correctly pointed out, we value an animal more than a tree, and certain animals/creatures more than others, and human beings most of all - and you intuit, and propose that most people intuit, that this is do with consciousness, sentience, and a capacity for subjective experience. So far so good, and I think most people would agree with this.

    But having got this far, developing a moral position which is based on our intuitions, and consistent with how we view things generally, you then introduce your "switched on" condition, which leads us the position that we should find the life of e.g. a frog as worth more than that of a 16 weeks foetus. But we don't find that - that doesn't seem intuitively right to me, or to most people I suggest - in fact it seems clearly "wrong".

    So for me, and most people I suggest, there is something wrong with your reasoning if it leads us to this position. What is wrong with it? It seems to me it must be around your (somewhat arbitrary) "switched on" condition. I suggest that most of us intuit that the life of a 16 week foetus is worth way more than that of a frog, despite the frog's consciousness etc. being "switched on", and the foetus' not being "switched on" yet. So our valuing consciousness, sentience, etc. can't be entirely dependent on it being currently "switched on", but must be, I suggest, related to the capability (and almost certainty) of developing that consciousness, sentience, etc.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #10658
    talkingshop talkingshop is offline
    talkingshop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    18,043

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    Why?

    Genuine question.

    And full disclosure : I feel I would have more ethical concern for the foetus in your scenario, but I suspect that it's as much an emotional response of the type Nozzferrahtoo referred to earlier as anything else, and on any case, definitely gut instinct rather than a logically thought out evaluation. And since it requires a ridiculously contrived hypothetical scenario to get to that, one could just as easily contrive other scenarios which would go the other way : what if merely to keep the non sentient foetus alive it was necessary to inflict horrendous pain on the conscious frog for six or seven months? Etc. All rather pointless, TBH.

    But I am interested in what it is about Nozferrahtoo's ability not to react emotionally to your scenario that makes you think that this undermines his "entire argument"? I don't see how it makes any difference myself.
    See my further reply to him.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #10659
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline
    StarryPlough01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    9,293

    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpy Talbot View Post
    Tonic is going to go apeshyte when he realises that the Constitutional Assembly is reluctant to accept religious argumentation as 'factual'.

    Do these people not know how Science-based the religious are?
    A moderator (a possible member of the RCC sect) has suspended their "FATWA" on me for expressing my protected religious views.

    I don't believe in fairy stories.

    Let's not forget, females have been drowned or burned as a witch. Those scores and scores and scores of HATE FILLED 'FATWA' posts calling me out as a WITCH and member of a coven, AND TO BE PERMA-BANNED, still remain undeleted on politics.ie threads (plural).

    It seems their sect is untouchable here on politics.ie. They have a Board appointee, who has OUTED HIMSELF; he is a member of same sect. He is homophobic and an extreme right wing fascist. He went apeshyte on me for denouncing US fascism. Once again, my views were protected, even as a visitor to US.



    We must always be vigilant.



    Yes, Lumpy, the Citizens' Assembly are leading the way in sorting out factual submissions from the chaff.



    PS

    To sum up, the sect think their religious views are sacrosanct, and to hell with other people's protected religious views.


    'Lest We Forget'
    Last edited by StarryPlough01; 14th February 2017 at 03:56 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10660
    The Eagle of the Ninth The Eagle of the Ninth is offline
    The Eagle of the Ninth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    51,697

    Is anyone surprised that the Citizens Assembly would be inundated by various Catholic organisations rabbiting about the 8th?

    In a way it shows you how desperate they are.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment