Rick Froman wrote:
> 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).
Another good argument for getting away from theories of ethical
responsibility that rely on decisions about the definitions of "human".
> 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.
Good point. No, of course I don't think that we have equal responsibilities
toward all of these beings. Nonetheless, I believe that wanton, purposeless
"ratslaughter" is wrong. Nothing new here, though. I'm sure we all agree
that there are circumstances under which it would be ethically right to kill
a human being. Circumstances surely have an impact.
> > 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.
Oh. As you can see, I read the argument in your first paragraph as
supporting what I've written in this paragraph (the one you just quoted).
> 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.
If that's true, they've failed miserably, right? Doesn't subscribing to an
essentialist position invariably lead one to that trap? The term "post hoc"
doesn't really help, as it's ALL post hoc, in reality, when you're messing
with essentialist definitions. Is there a real a priori way to tell human
from non-human? Is there a real a priori distinction? I don't see that you
can "avoid the trap of deciding post hoc who is human and who is not" by
touting an ethic that depends upon defining "human".
> 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".
Well, that's a pretty good description of my stereotype of the persons who
already tend to volunteer for that job - those who try to impose the
essentialist criterion. Perhaps it's different in Arkansas, but here in
Milwaukee anytime the abortion issue comes to a head, you're guaranteed to
hear from people eagerly making that particular decision, and actively
trying to impose their definitions on others. "Delusions of godhood" play
well around here (I suspect the folks in Buffalo are quite familiar with
that problem as well). And they run rampant in those judgements about the
morality of killing animals that I mentioned in that other post.
I hope it's clear that the argument I put forward in my other post was
intended largely to avoid requiring that kind of "tin-plated dictatorship".
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
