Paul C. Smith writes on 30 Aug 99,:
> The ethics of abortion have been clouded by essentialist attempts to make
> the humanity of the aborted entity into the turning point. Deb Brihl gives
> us an alternative when she writes:
>
> "I have had the chance to read an interesting book by Sheri Tepper called
> 6 Moon Dance. In the book, humanity has been redefined as not necessarily
> species, but rather based on actions - intelligence, ethics, etc. So, some
> species were elevated to human level and certain groups of people were
> removed from the definition of human. Just another bit to the definition
> of human being".
Does no one else on the list shudder at the prospect of removing certain
groups from the definition of "human"? It's not like the human race hasn't
had a lot of experience with this (reference just about every war and all
cases of genocide). So if a certain group scores an SD or two below
average on the IQ test and we feel that maybe their tradition of fertility rituals
is barbaric and unethical, we declare them subhuman and let the hunting
season begin. And do the species moving up get to decide what they
consider ethical? (Maybe abandoning or even eating our children is OK if the
foraging is getting difficult.) And do any carnivorous species get to move
up? If so, do they then have ethical obligations to those a little further down
in the food chain? And what about lawyers? Where do they fit in?
> I personally believe that we have ethical responsibilities towards entities
> that have experiences (people, cats, and probably late-term fetuses), and no
> such responsibilities towards entities that do not have experiences (rocks,
> most insects, and fertilized human eggs).
I assume by having experiences you mean that they are sentient beings (to
use a Star Trek term.) I also assume that you don't feel we have equal
ethical responsibilities toward all these beings -- if we do, I am going to be
up on charges for ratslaughter 1 (or worse) for putting out those traps.
> That's where I feel the line should be drawn, but make no mistake - there's
> no scientific support for that purely ethical/values-based decision. But it's
> surely a dramatically better decision than one based on untruths about the
> ability of science to find evidence for something that is really just a
> definition ("humanity").
I guess, by definition, any decision would be better than one based on
"untruths" and I agree that there is no scientific support for purely ethical
decisions. It seems that some disagree with this and believe that science
can address ethical questions or alternatively, if science can't address it, it
is irrelevant. Of course, it is possible that I am just misreading their position.
> There is nothing to be gained by claiming to have "the right" definition of
> "human", and the sooner we drop that nonsense, the sooner we can start making
> some ethical progress wrt these medical ethics issues.
As you might see from my first paragraph, far from being nonsense, the
definition of "human" can have and has had very important implications. If
we decide to replace it with the suggestion attributed to Sheri Tepper, there
will be no end to the mayhem that could result. I think the reason many
people have ascribed to what Paul calls an "essentialist" definition of
"human" (i.e., a fertilized egg with the potential of developing into a human) is
to avoid the trap of deciding post hoc who is human and who is not. In
terms of the history of psych, a structuralist definition of a human being will
be much more difficult to fudge by those with evil intent than a functionalist
definition of humanity (e.g., what do you do to deserve the civil liberties we
afford to human beings?)
What kind of person do you suppose would volunteer to make the decision
concerning whether a certain individual or group of individuals should be
considered human? I don't think anyone of us would. To do so, one would
have to have the qualities one Klingon ascribed to Captain Kirk: a
"swaggering, overbearing, tin-plated dictator with delusions of godhood".
Or maybe a physician ;-} (reminds me of the difference between God and a
doctor -- God doesn't think he's a doctor.)
Rick
Dr. Rick Froman
Psychology Department
Box 3055
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jbu.edu/sbs/psych
Office: (501)524-7295
Fax: (501)524-9548
"Happiness is not found by searching, but by researching."
