General
07 Feb 04
11 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeYeah, couldn't agree more. Also, eugenics is all based on the idea that we're nothing but our genes, as if our upbringing, education etc was not important.
Did you ever meet a little snob on a playground who thought he was better than everyone?
Jack: Sometimes you sound like a snob. Do you think you are better than other people?
Eugene: I don't think I'm better; I know I'm better.
Jack: Oh? What makes you think that?
Eugene: I'm smarter.
Jack: That makes you better than other people? Are you also str ...[text shortened]... like him, you already understand the dark heart of eugenics, the "ideology of arrogance."
Rich.
11 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeActually I thought eugenics did not mean that smarter is better but that it would depend on the application i.e. a 'worker' type which is strong but not very smart, a 'military' type etc. I don't know a lot about it though.
Did you ever meet a little snob on a playground who thought he was better than everyone?
Jack: Sometimes you sound like a snob. Do you think you are better than other people?
Eugene: I don't think I'm better; I know I'm better.
Jack: Oh? What makes you think that?
Eugene: I'm smarter.
Jack: That makes you better than other people? Are you also str ...[text shortened]... like him, you already understand the dark heart of eugenics, the "ideology of arrogance."
Some very eminent people were apparently advocates of eugenics, including Winston Churchill.
11 Feb 04
2 edits
Originally posted by AcolyteAcolyte: " .... just cut embryos which have the defective genes out of the system - like natural selection, only faster. In fact, if you believe life begins at conception, it's almost completely useless ... "
I think you can divide human intervention into its own genome into four categories:
1. Artificial selection, eg sex selection, weeding out defective genes etc.
2. Modification to affect the expression of existing genes, or substitute ...[text shortened]... iety be able to hold itself together in the face of such a divide?
This is one of the reasons that we are told that human life does not begin at conception. We are also told to believe and accept the personhood concept. These ideologies are "Wahlverwandschaften" of the present and future Bio-Industrial Complex. The philosophers like bbarr, there are many others of course, deliver the rationalisations that are needed to accept and realise these new techniques.
11 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeSince you apparently don't understand my view, please just stop referring to me in your posts. I've never said life doesn't begin at conception. It's obvious that a life (and sometimes more than one life, in the case of monozygotic twinning) begins at conception. A person, however, does not begin at conception. Persons begin when mentality appears, and that doesn't happen until further in the pregnancy.
This is one of the reasons that we are told that life does not begin at conception. We are also told to believe and accept the personhood concept. These ideologies are "Wahlverwandschaften" of the present and future Bio-Industrial Complex. The philosophers like bbarr, there are many others of course, deliver the rationalisations that are needed to accept and realise these new techniques.
11 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThat is EXACTLY what I mean when I say that you and a lot of other philosophers deliver the necessary rationalisations that are needed to realise the techniques so much wanted by the people in the Bio-Industrial Complex. Of course you cannot deny that human life begins at conception. You and your fellow travellers are not stupid. Therefore the personhood concept was being developed. In this way it is possible to kill human beings, a necessary condition to be able to experiment on unborn human beings in the laboratories of the Bio-Industrial Complex.
Since you apparently don't understand my view, please just stop referring to me in your posts. I've never said life doesn't begin at conception. It's obvious that a life (and sometimes more than one life, in the case of monozygotic twin ...[text shortened]... ppears, and that doesn't happen until further in the pregnancy.
14 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by richhoeyHey Rich,
Yeah, couldn't agree more. Also, eugenics is all based on the idea that we're nothing but our genes, as if our upbringing, education etc was not important.
Rich.
Actually, one of the interesting things about eugenics is that it was an effort to explain humanity that went terribly wrong. Scientists tried to explain why there were different levels of civilization existing at the same time on earth. Logic would dictate that all people would be 'approximately equal' in technology, for example.
What was lacking in this effort was a spead sheat showing "resources" and "societal desires" and "religious bias".
So the science was totally bad.
Then the bad guys picked up on it. Hitler and his crowd.
They used it to destroy millions in the name of science. Is it any wonder that science has a bad name amongst religions of the world?
By the way... ALL supporters of eugenics were liberals and socialists. From the best intent in the world... which is to say... "to understand the world better". All opponents of this movement were religious conservatives. Irony. This can be the best example in the history of the world.
14 Feb 04
3 edits
Originally posted by AcolyteYes 😀 I say it is ironic because the effort to understand the world from a "liberal" perspective is not the mantra of the "right wing nuts" and nazi's who no longer see it as a "religion vs. evolution" issue, as it was in the twenties and thirties. The right origionally opposed it because it would have meant admitting to evolution, you see. Both sides have COMPLETELY SWITCHED sides. Irony.
I forget... from your point-of-view, are religious conservatives the good guys or the bad guys?
14 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe: "We are also told to believe and accept the personhood concept. These ideologies are "Wahlverwandschaften" of the present and future Bio-Industrial Complex. The philosophers deliver the rationalisations that are needed to accept and realise these new techniques."
Acolyte: " .... just cut embryos which have the defective genes out of the system - like natural selection, only faster. In fact, if you believe life begins at conception, it's almost completely useless ... "
This is one of the reaso ...[text shortened]... s that are needed to accept and realise these new techniques.
I made some changes in my statement. Can you agree with me now, bbarr ?
14 Feb 04
2 edits
So, Ivan and bbar...
What do you think will happen to us in a thousand years? As per my surmise at the start?
Will we still be around then? Will we be into "designer gene's" at that time? If so... how will SOCIETY handle it. (notice I used the generic 'society' instead of 'religion and science'😉
Curious. Mike
<edit> the ideas of how 'Religion' and 'Science' will handle it comes later, i think. Much more complicated discussion.
14 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm sorry, I'm confused about what you're asking me. I'm not telling anybody to believe the personhood concept, because concepts aren't the sorts of things that can be believed. Propositions are the things that are believed. I can believe the proposition "it is raining", or "it is Thursday", but it makes no sense to say that I believe the concept RAINING or the concept THURSDAY. Concepts aren't declarative, they don't have truth-values, and thus can't be the objects of belief. What I have been trying to show is the it makes a moral difference in our treatment of a creature if that creature has the capacity to suffer or is a person.
Ivanhoe: "We are also told to believe and accept the personhood concept. These ideologies are "Wahlverwandschaften" of the present and future Bio-Industrial Complex. The philosophers deliver the rationalisations that are needed to accept ...[text shortened]... me changes in my statement. Can you agree with me now, bbarr ?
Anyway, claiming that the guiding principles (is that kind of what you mean by "Wahlverwandschaften"?) of the Bio-Industrial Complex has been provided by philosophers is not only trivially true but also, in the context of a discussion of eugenics, a bit disingenuous. Of course, most ethical views arose from some philosopher or other, so to the extent that the Bio-Industrial Complex is motivated by ethical concerns, it will follow that the guiding principle at work originated with a philosopher. Even if, hypothetically, the only guiding principle of the Bio-Industrial Complex was profit, there would be a corresponding view in ethics (Ethical Egoism, or perhaps Normative Cultural Relativism). I sincerely doubt there are many people in the Bio-Industrial Complex who have read Kant or Hobbes or Mill, even fewer who have understood them, and even fewer than that who base their professional decisions upon the views of these (or other) philosophers.
14 Feb 04
Originally posted by bbarrSerious question. What does a person have the right to do? I have read Hobbs and Kant and found them lacking in favor of Ayn Rand.
I'm sorry, I'm confused about what you're asking me. I'm not telling anybody to believe the personhood concept, because concepts aren't the sorts of things that can be believed. Propositions are the things that are believed. I can believe the proposition "it is raining", or "it is Thursday", but it makes no sense to say that I believe the concept R ...[text shortened]... that who base their professional decisions upon the views of these (or other) philosophers.
To be honest... I know next to nothing about Mill.
The personal "responsibility ethic"... the "selfish" me. Selfish... is a totally good thing, by the way. It means you are aware of self and others by imlication. You can't be truly 'selfish' without considering others as they relate to self. (See Atlas Shrugged)
Is this not as good as what Hobbs offers? If not... Am I defective because I know, within my heart that "I" am responsible?
14 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyFor Kant, my right to do what I want to do is constrained by the rights of others to have their autonomy respected. For Hobbes, my right to do what I want to do is constrained by the content of a social contract that specifies norms of conduct. Kant thought rationality itself required of persons that they respect the autonomy of others, and treat others as ends in and of themselves. Hobbes also wanted morality to be based upon rationality, in the form of self-interest, and thought that we all have good reason to enter into a social contract because by cooperation we could satisfy certain or our interests that we couldn't satisfy were we all to directly compete with one another (because some goods, like personal security, health care, education, improvements to infrastructure, etc. can only be procured through our cooperation). Mill was a Utilitarian, which I've posted about at length in another current thread. Basically, Mill thought our actions should be constrained based upon considerations of what would maximize the presence of Higher-order pleasure (normally understood as pleasure of the intellectual sort). I don't know much about Ayn Rand's 'objectivist' ethics, so I can't really comment on her relation to other theorists. From what you've posted, however, it sounds like Rand and Hobbes have some overlap in their views.
Serious question. What does a person have the right to do? I have read Hobbs and Kant and found them lacking in favor of Ayn Rand.
To be honest... I know next to nothing about Mill.
The personal "responsibility ethic"... the ...[text shortened]... use I know, within my heart that "I" am responsible?
14 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrAyn Rand said that "I have no right to interfere in any fashion with anothers actions." Then as to Hobbs I guess I remember her stating that "We coexist by mutual consent. If I don't respect you, you will not respect me." So maybe Ayn read the above?
For Kant, my right to do what I want to do is constrained by the rights of others to have their autonomy respected. For Hobbes, my right to do what I want to do is constrained by the content of a social contract that specifies norms of condu ...[text shortened]... , it sounds like Rand and Hobbes have some overlap in their views.
Sounds like it.
Ayn would totally disagree with Mill's nothion that "if you can't get what you want... get what you need."
Objectivism is simply the Idea that "There Is No Shame In Being Selfish". simply because we all are. In the best sense... "If you are selfish... you recognize yourself. If you do this, then you must recognize all else as equal or recognize the fool."
I paraphrase. Can't help it if the greats need help in their polemics.
😉
Yes. I would say Hobbes and Rand do have it in common except that she goes further and INSISTS that there is nothing responsible for you, but you. This is quite powerful when you consider modern civilizaiton and the age of 'who did this'.
"We all use the coal that turns the turbine that heats our homes that degrades the atmosphere that kills our children... so our children can live in warmth and comfort." ® SVW, 2004
What you think? Quote of the day?
😛