"My complaint is that even the Freethinkers agree with that shallow materialistic egotistical culture and not only accept but fervently advocate the ultimate consequenses of that culture: the Culture of Death." Ivanhoe
Maybe I should have written: "My complaint is that even the Freethinkers SEEM to agree with that shallow, materialistic, egotistical culture and have not only seemingly accepted it but have become fervent advocates of the ultimate consequenses of this shallow materialistic culture : the Culture of Death."
Freethought has much criticism towards society, but not towards the essence of this Western Culture and the ULTIMATE consequences of this consumer oriented capitalist exploitation culture, the Culture of Death.
Don't you see that this Culture of Death is a necessary consequence of the culture you want to critisise. In my view and in my way of thinking (and please forget that I'm religious because that is constantly jamming our communication) it is impossible to accept this Western Culture and the consequenses of this culture. You don't have any principal objections to the culture of death, on the contrary, you are accepting it. I'm perfectly willing to accept all the shades of grey that you are using to describe your stance, but in the end you are an advocate of what is called the Culture of Death. Your thinking in this field of questions and problems concerning life and death is more a constituting part of Modern Western Culture than you are willing (or able) to realise.
If this is true (and I believe it ís true) this will be a very unpleasant truth for many if not all Freethinkers. But I do have faith that if someone is willing to seek the truth no matter what it will be very fruitful to accept this very fundamental criticism.
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Ivanhoe, you should know by now that calling an argument 'semantic (sic) gymnastics" is merely just an ad hominem fallacy. Let's traffic in arguments, not name calling.
Where American medicine is leading society these past thirty years was outlined in a prophetic editorial of the pro-death journal, California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association in September 1970 after abortion was legalized in that state:
"….Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.
The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected…Certainly this has required placing relative values on human lives and the impact of the physician in this decision process has been considerable.
One may anticipate further development of these roles as the problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and death control whether by the individual or by society…"
Published in the pro-death journal, California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association in September 1970 after abortion was legalized in that state.
The term "semantic gymnastics" was not mine as you can see. However your reasoning is indeed full of semantic gymnastics. The reason why is being revealed in this article by one of your ideological friends. If you have any objections, including the ad hominem fallacy criticism, I would suggest you write a letter to them. Please keep me posted about the results of the correspondence between you and your friends ......
Originally posted by ivanhoeAgain, such a misstatement of what I said. I distinguished between forms of reasoning and I distinquished between forms of loving. I really don't know what you mean when you use the term "Reason" and "Love", other than as just a shorthand for the use of different forms of reasoning or types of loving respectively. Since you haven't been at all clear on what you mean, or how Reason could "surpass" Love, I don't know how to respond. In my life, my reasoning and my loving complement each other, they do not come into conflict. It is not that I could not follow you somewhere, but that I doubt your destination is intelligible.
I do not dispute the merits of logic. You can prove whatever you want with logic. It all depends on the assumptions. Many of my opponents assume that I do not understand logic or that I deny the merits of logic. I guess that is a prejudice against believers. I'v stated in a post that we need reason and logic, but we must not permit Reason to domineer Love. When I stated that notion Bbarr was lost. He could not follow me there.
The term "semantic gymnastics" was not mine as you can see. However your reasoning is indeed full of semantic gymnasticsYou're quite good at repeating yourself. Again, this is an ad hominem fallacy. You've stated elsewhere in this thread that you recognize the merits of proper reasoning. That seems strange, given your frequent abandonment of it. If my reasoning is full of 'semantic (sic) gymnastics", then please point out a clear instance of it in one of my arguments.
Originally posted by bbarrIvanhoe: "You just declare human beings as not being a person and as by magic [disguised as "reason"] you have a right to kill them. This is irrationality at its peak. You Bbarr are an advocate of very dangerous ideas."
You're quite good at repeating yourself. Again, this is an ad hominem fallacy. You've stated elsewhere in this thread that you recognize the merits of proper reasoning. That seems strange, given your frequent abandonment of it. If my reasoning is full of 'semantic (sic) gymnastics", then please point out a clear instance of it in one of my arguments.
Bbarr: "This is a misstatement of my view. I think most human organisms are persons, as most human organisms have the capacity to suffer and the capacity of self-awareness and the capacity for rationality. I’ve made this point exceedingly plain in my previous posts in this thread, so I won’t belabor the point here. Suffice it to say that if you think all human organisms are persons, then you think brain-dead human organisms who are artificially kept alive are persons. But you’ve claimed in the euthanasia thread that a brain-dead human organism is no longer a person. So, an entailment of your own view is that not all human organisms are persons. I’ve suggested there are properties something must have for it to be considered a person and thus for it to have interests that need to be taken into consideration. The fetus, early in the pregnancy, has none of these characteristics because it doesn’t have the necessary neural infrastructure responsible for such properties. Hence, fetuses are not persons, at least early on in the pregnancy."
The distinction between human beings and other human beings (the person concept) is a construction to rationalise killing human beings and to silence peoples conscience (don't worry you are not killing a person). That is what I call semantic gymnastics. I find it very dangerous to create different kinds of human beings, human beings without Human Rights and human beings with Human Rights. It reminds me of Nietsches Übermensch and Üntermensch ideas. You know who took advantage of those ideas. You do not realise the social and political impact your ideas may have.
Maybe you should propose to change the term "Human Rights" into "Person Rights". Again a form of semantic gymnastics that would save the pro-death debaters a lot of trouble.
The trouble with the person concept is also that you cannot determine whether un unborn is already a person with human rights or still a human being without human rights. This opens the door for the theoretically impossible slippery slope. In practise the slippery slope is doing it's morbid and irrational work. But as you have stated before your projects tend to be theoretical.
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "Suffice it to say that if you think all human organisms are persons, then you think brain-dead human organisms who are artificially kept alive are persons. But you’ve claimed in the euthanasia thread that a brain-dead human organism is no longer a person. So, an entailment of your own view is that not all human organisms are persons."
You're quite good at repeating yourself. Again, this is an ad hominem fallacy. You've stated elsewhere in this thread that you recognize the merits of proper reasoning. That seems strange, given your frequent abandonment of it. If my reasoning is full of 'semantic (sic) gymnastics", then please point out a clear instance of it in one of my arguments.
A brain dead human being or person is dead. You just bury the dead corpse. There is only a dead human corpse. You can stop every treatment. This isnt even a case of passive euthanasia. The person is dead. You cannot kill a dead person. Therefore there is no moral problem here.
Again a case of semantic gymnastics.
Where American medicine is leading society these past thirty years was outlined in a prophetic editorial of the pro-death journal, California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association in September 1970 after abortion was legalized in that state:
I would like you to comment, if you please, on the contents of the (prophetic) editorial published in the pro-death journal California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association. You can find it in one of my previous posts in this thread.
The distinction between human beings and other human beings (the person concept) is a construction to rationalise killing human beings and to silence peoples conscience (don't worry you are not killing a person). That is what I call semantic gymnastics. I find it very dangerous to create different kinds of human beings, human beings without Human Rights and human beings with Human Rights. It reminds me of Nietsches Übermensch and Üntermensch ideas. You know who took advantage of those ideas. You do not realise the social and political impact your ideas may have.
No, the distinction is meant to make clear what underlies our common moral claims. Recall what I have argued it is that makes a human organism a person: First, there must be some rudimentary capacity for suffering. Second, there must be some rudimentary form of self-awareness. Third, there must be some rudimentary form of rationality or reflectiveness. These conditions are met in almost all living human organisms, so this view doesn't entail that differences can be drawn between, say, races or genders. What the view does entail at some stages of life every human organism isn't a person. So, this view pretty much includes all human organisms who are in the late stages of pregnancy or older, until that point where they no longer have the capacity for mentality at all. These consequences aren't nearly so dire that you are justified in comparing my view to that which informed Nazi policy. This is just your common use of slander as a device in debate. I might claim that since you profess belief in "God", and since various terrorists also profess beliefs in "God", it follows that your views are part and parcel of a "Culture of Terror".
Maybe you should propose to change the term "Human Rights" into "Person Rights". Again a form of semantic gymnastics that would save the pro-death debaters a lot of trouble.
Actually, I like this idea. Rather than the have the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", we should have "The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Persons".
The trouble with the person concept is also that you cannot determine whether un unborn is already a person with human rights or still a human being without human rights. This opens the door for the theoretically impossible slippery slope. In practise the slippery slope is doing it's morbid and irrational work. But as you have stated before your projects tend to be theoretical.
This is surely false. The zygote is beyond doubt not a person, for it has none of the necessary capacities. A fetus in the third trimester clearly is a person, as it has the capacity to suffer, the rudimentary capacity for rational thought, etc. I'm not sure whether the fetus late in the pregnancy has a rudimentary form of self-awareness rather than just awareness simpliciter. But that wouldn't matter as far as it's rights are concerned (it would still be a moral patient, though not a moral agent, of course). Late in the preganancy the personhood of the fetus is beyond doubt. If a necessary condition for having the capacity to suffer is the possession of a nervous system with a certain structure, than we can look for the development of that structure in the developing fetus and on that basis make our decisions about the permissibility of abortion at various stages of the pregnancy.
So, no theoretical slippery slope threatens, as always, because it is an invalid form of inference that leads to slippery slopes in the first place.
A brain dead human being or person is dead. You just bury the dead corpse. There is only a dead human corpse. You can stop every treatment. This isnt even a case of passive euthanasia. The person is dead. You cannot kill a dead person. Therefore there is no moral problem here.
But why is there no moral problem here? If all human beings have rights, and corpses are just human beings of the dead variety, then why don't they have rights as well? The obvious answer is that when a human being loses the capacity for mentality, they are no longer a person. So, your claims above commit you to the claim that what makes human beings persons has something to do with their mentality. This, of course, is exactly what I claim.
Again a case of semantic gymnastics.
I've finally figured out how you've been arguing. It goes like this:
(1) For any argument, A, if the conclusion of A conflicts with something Ivanhoe believes, the person presenting A is a member of the Culture of Death.
(2) For any argument A, if A is presented by a member of the Culture of Death and Ivanhoe finds himself unable to either understand or respond to A, then A is an instance of semantic (sic) gymnastics.
From here on, I'll take the above to be the working definitions of both "Culture of Death" and "Semantic (sic) Gymnastics".
Originally posted by ivanhoeComment: The quote has nothing to do with my position.
Where American medicine is leading society these past thirty years was outlined in a prophetic editorial of the pro-death journal, California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association in September 1970 after abortion was legalized in that state:
I would like you to comment, if you please, on the contents of the (prophetic) edito ...[text shortened]... alifornia Medical Association. You can find it in one of my previous posts in this thread.
Originally posted by bbarr
Comment: The quote has nothing to do with my position.
It certainly has. You constantly assume that we are discussing your own private philosophy and your own private reasoning. What I'm doing is to discuss political, social and cultural developements. Your projects tend to be theoretical. What I want to discuss are actual factual developements. These developements are not possible within your theoretical reasoning. Political and cultural processes do not always develop in a rational way, bbarr. That's something you cannot understand within the framework of your theories, which aren't your theories at all by the way.
This quote has everything to do with your position. It has everything to do with the slippery slope developements that you claim to be impossible. You are hiding in your safe theoretical ivory tower. It's about time you mingle with the crowd.
Originally posted by bbarrBBarr: "These conditions are met in almost all living human organisms, so this view doesn't entail that differences can be drawn between, say, races or genders."
Comment: The quote has nothing to do with my position.
"almost all " that's right.
Your view dóes entail that differences can be drawn between healthy people and mentally ill human beings. If they can be described as not being persons in the sense you mean than they can be killed without any moral problems. Maybe you can even change the definition of a person in order to widen the groups that are not to be seen as persons anymore. Maybe others will do that instead of you in the context of the semantic gymnastics the journal California Medicine was talking about.
As a matter of fact I'm discussing your responsability as a philosopher towards people and society as a whole. These are no games without consequenses we are playing here.
Therefore the quote has everything to do with your responsabilities ánd your position. You cannot lock yourself up in your ivory tower.
Ivanhoe: "Maybe you should propose to change the term "Human Rights" into "Person Rights". Again a form of semantic gymnastics that would save the pro-death debaters a lot of trouble."
Bbarr: "Actually, I like this idea. Rather than the have the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", we should have "The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Persons"."
I knew that you would like the idea. Isn't it true that American philosophers and medical (!) people are working on that project ? They are lobbying in the corridors of the United Nations. Do you know anything about that ?
It certainly has. You constantly assume that we are discussing your own private philosophy and your own private reasoning. What I'm doing is to discuss political, social and cultural developements. Your projects tend to be theoretical. What I want to discuss are actual factual developements. These developements are not possible within your theoretical reasoning. Political and cultural processes do not always develop in a rational way, bbarr. That's something you cannot understand within the framework of your theories, which aren't your theories at all by the way.
No, Ivanhoe, it doesn't. The quote begins with the assumption that the killing of a fetus is an instance of the killing of a human organism and thus it is abhorrent. I reject the conclusion of this assumption. While the killing of a fetus is always the killing of a human organism, it is not always the killing of a person. It is this central strand of the pro-choice position that you seem unable to grasp. We don't think that killing human organisms is wrong merely because they are human organisms. We think killing human organisms is wrong in those cases where a person is killed. Because the quote is assuming something I explicity reject, it has nothing to do with my position.
[b]This quote has everything to do with your position. It has everything to do with the slippery slope developements that you claim to be impossible. You are hiding in your safe theoretical ivory tower. It's about time you mingle with the crowd.[b]
No, Ivanhoe, it doesn't. I'm married, I currently have three jobs, I vote, and I'm fairly politically actice. I haven't yet seen any ivory towers, and I'm certainly not hiding in one. I could just as easily enjoin you to throw away your intellectual and ethical crutches; to cease hiding behind the Cross and the phantasm for which it stands, and "mingle with the crowd" of autonomous persons. But, of course, this wouldn't be charitable. A discussion about ethics is by necessity a theoretical discussion. If you want to talk about actual policies, that's a different matter. Questions of moral wrongness, personhood, rights, etc. are questions in the theoretical domain. I have little doubt that politicians and their lawyer dogs will make terrible mistakes in the policies they implement. Look at U.S. policy on health care, education, etc. You'll see that our politicians care very little for persons, even when those persons are also citizens. But a discussion of policy is a different discussion, and one in which I'm happy to engage.