About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 100

Tuesday, July 1, 2003 - 5:04pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Stolyarov,

One method of continued argumentation would be for me to keep attempting to draw you back to the fundamentals – to the pure reasoning behind your notions. Instead (because I feel that it will require more total “work” that way), I will adopt a Utilitarian (“net merits or benefits” X “probability of the achievement of said merits” = expected value) approach. You asked for it, Mr. Stolyarov … you definitely ask for this one.

Warning: this post is not for the “easily mislead”, those who desire clear, straightforward reasoning, or for those who believe that ethics and humor are mutually exclusive (read at your own risk – except for you, Mr. Stolyarov, I believe that it is a futuristic certainty that you read this! – be careful if you try to prove me wrong on this – hehe – being aware of the logic implications of that!)

It involves beating you on your own turf (and making you yearn to be me - begging for a more simplified approach – pleading with me to state my terms in the form of a syllogism so that your weary, fallible mind can deal with it). Boy, are you ever in for a ride (you messed with the wrong intellectual, my friend).

I must say that you sir, - like a pit-bull that has been bred to fight to the death, or perhaps sometimes even beyond it – are one tiring opponent. Perhaps I’m tired because you are attempting to lead me around in circles, as if you are using an old Kantian Mind Trick on me. Allow me to return the favor:

Read on … you must read on … your curiosity dictates it … get lost inside MY maze now (and let’s see how YOU like it – what’ll you do when I beat you with your OWN style of argumentation, Mr. Stolyarov – I need not remind you that Kasparov first complained that “the machine” was built specifically to play him; specifically to BEAT HIM) … hmpfh …

It is, or at least (before this post) it was, a little known fact that I am a recovering Kant-aholic (and I keep the Serenity Prayer in my mind to prevent a relapse); still somewhat susceptible to specious reasoning if it is packaged well enough and tied with a pretty “deep blue” ribbon (“deep blue” gets me every time, … what about you, Mr. Stolyarov? Has “deep blue” ever gotten you? … Ah, you don’t have to answer that, Mr. Stolyarov. Gee whiz! I mean, where are my manners anyway?! Oh, that’s right … they went out when you didn’t agree to knock over your own King when I had you – and I DID have you, Mr. Stolyarov).

Well, at any rate, it looks like you are in for a fight and that you are “in it; to win it”. So I guess that I should just be giving up now, huh? Forget about it, Mr. Stolyarov. Because, like the powerful alien life forms of Thompson’s Razor, who are jam-packed with militant curiosity, I will take you down, I will take you down to China town, my friend.

Yeah, that’s right. Who did you THINK served as the real-life model for these aliens, Mr. Stolyarov? Huh? Yeah, that’s right … the proper emotion for you right now is fear. Anything but fear would be irrational! As Vizzini would have said in the epic motion picture “The Princess Bride”: “Can’t you see that I’ve already won?! I’ve already outsmarted before you even got started!! It’s inconceivable to think that you could outwit the Great Vizzini!! Inconceivable!!”

And now, after failing to knock over your own King when a ‘mate was “futuristically certain”, let’s follow the most likely scenario at the termination of this otherwise civil game of chess/philosophy (as if WE are the aliens watching the fallible humans relate to one another, in order to get some notes on their stage of enlightenment and level of intellectual maturity):

Mr. Thompson: Why don’t you knock over your King? With my Queen (Ayn Rand), my Knight (T. Edward Damer), and my Bishop (Mortimer Adler) I have got you backed into a metaphysical corner and there is no escape! No escape except for the divorce of value from valuer stemming from the adoption of an Intrinsic Theory of Values and relying heavily on Immanentism at least, and perhaps Pantheism? I’m even almost ready to charge you with a Primacy of Consciousness charge, Mr. Stolyarov (I just need a little more from you in order to be able to “prove” it!)! What do you think about that?!

Mr. Stolyarov: Aha. Attack me you have, my friend. But the defeat of my immanentism is not immanent. It is not … let me see … how should I say this to you … a futuristic certainty!

Mr. Thompson (with fire in his eyes, stands abruptly and draws his sword; as the blade is drawn from its sheath, the engraved letters on the side of the blade spell out A-R-I-S-T-O-T-L-E): I’m gonna’ bust yer’ head open with some Nichomachean Ethics, alright?!

Mr. Stolyarov (by the time his opponents weapon is drawn, he lifts a shield which protects him momentarily from the Battle Razor drawn; this shield is so thick that you can’t slice through it without exhausting yourself in the process; and Mr. Thompson realizes that he can’t as he reads the word engraved on the shield: “K-A-N-T”): What’s this?? A Libertarian endorsing (by his untoward behavior) the use of force?? This is inconceivable!!

Mr. Thompson (trying to break the shield): I never said that I was a Libertarian. What did you think, that it must be “immanent”? An “intrinsic” notion of yours? Is it already spelled out in my “genome”, Mr. Stolyarov? I am not a Libertarian now, in actuality; but am I becoming one, Mr. Stolyarov?

C’mon, can’t you tell me with “certainty” what I’m becoming? Not a “human being” (a mere actuality), but a “human becoming” (now there’s a futuristic certainty, huh?!) Now we are talking about a real individual! And a “particular” one to boot! This thing (the “human becoming”; which isn’t a conscious being and won’t be for months, if at all, but has a genome, nonetheless) has rights, huh??!!

Besides, using Vizzini’s “inconceivable” outburst was MY idea (so get your own damn bromides)! I guess you could say that I have an intrinsic sense of entitlement regarding all who ever use it, ever again (like a genome has an intrinsic sense of entitlement, right?)!

Mr. Stolyarov (realizing that this is not Mr. Thompson’s first battle, and that he is damn good at the business of uncovering truth and promoting mutually understanding, draws his own sword and as it is drawn, letters engraved on the side read I-AM-STOLYAROV; the weapons clang with a sound like thunder): Don’t you know who you are up against? [clang … clang] I have articles that would make your puny little head spin. You would have to ask me for your mind back after reading them, because they are THAT mesmerizing. [clang … clang] I have created short poems that unite humor with logic, topped with practical, life-affirming answers to political dilemmas (which are verifiably good, by the way; especially #5 and #9!)!


Mr. Thompson: [clang … clang] You are using Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals against me [clang … clang].

Mr. Stolyarov: Ah, yes. [clang … clang] Well, then naturally you’d expect me to attack with Hegel’s New Logic of the Concrete?! [clang … clang]

Mr. Thompson (breathing hard): [clang … clang] I find that Aristotle’s Organon cancels out Hegel’s Logic of the Concrete, don’t you agree?

Mr. Stolyarov (steps back, as if to relish in a Eureka moment; but it is really to just take a short “breather”): Ahhh, but this is not a “futuristic certainty”! [clang … clang]


[to be continued – unless, being beaten at your own game of colorful, full, fantastical reasoning, you now concede, Mr. Stolyarov?]


Sources:

1. See a “Metaphysics of Morals” preview – online

available: http://www.swan.ac.uk/poli/texts/kant/kantb.htm


2. See “Hegel” on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - online

available: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/



Post 101

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 - 4:40pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Upon a futuristic analysis, the following will be found to be totally inexcusable; albeit not without reason ...


An Obituary

Ladies & Gentlemen,

It is with great sorrow that I stand before you today to announce the termination of what was once such an incredible postulation. We all know of the subject of which I am speaking. It is a notion/idea which we have come to endearingly call: The F-Word(s). Yes ... futuristic certainty, our once beloved concept, has now passed on into that "deep blue" sea.

But there is reason to rejoice, my fellow brethren. For all its original greatness has not come and gone in vain. It was once said that: "A mind, once expanded by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions". And it it here where the greatness of this gloriously original concept has come to reside eternally, in the enlarged dimensions of our minds.

It was uncertain (pun intended) whether this idea would take hold in the minds of those exposed to it. It's creator was therefore brave in marshalling new thought and responding to the hungry masses of jackels and laughing hyenas who wanted a "piece of it" to quench their own gnawing pains or to glibly make fun of it as a novelty, as if that is all that it was, and not something driving their mental evolution.

It was not long though, until an effective rebuttal surfaced from the masses. It was this one (one of the "Hyenas") that realized the irresolvable paradox of having a certainty which is, in actuality, not certain. It was after earlier attempted rebuttals brought to light the immutable fact of natural spontaneous abortion (ie. actual uncertainty); and the glossing-over of such charges that this Hyena sensed an evasion of mental integration (a "breach in the hull", so to speak) that would not withstand the tides when the waters got rough.

As the story goes: there is only one thing that can produce a dynamic such as this. The only thing that could make a certainty in such a context is "intention" (ie. Consciousness). Whether it be labelled the intention of: an Intelligent Designer, or of Nature, or of God, or of Steven Spielberg does not matter.

In this respect, the human genome becomes nothing other than the Designer's handwriting. The Designer's signature on a "purchase order" for a "particular product". Such signatures are certain (as well as the intentional meaning behind them), but the filling of these "orders" rests on the larger nature of the system. Alas, another certainty must arise in order to act on this premise.

One must become certain of the Designer's intention by translating the "estimates" encoded on these microscopic physical bodies. But what if a purchase order was not meant to be filled in the system? - No answer - This system is assumed to be perfect; no purchase order would have been written up if it were not entirely completed with signature-amount-date-etc, if it were not the appropriate time to order; and the warehouse never runs out of product in this system.

And so it goes that the idea was felled by an appeal to the Primacy of Consciousness (nevertheless, it was a grand idea).

Ladies & Gentlemen,

Anyone can man the helm of a vessel of any size when the waters are calm. The true test of the competence of a captain is his navigation in waters that are unforgivingly rough. Indeed, the quintessential test would be for the man to be in a boat that was riddled with imperfection and to STILL SUCCESSFULLY NAVIGATE in these harshest of waters. To be able to adapt to this situation and carry his crew to safety, even with a breach in the hull. That my friends, is the definition of a true hero.

A man whose competence has little company, and who serves as a lighthouse for other vessels who wish to sail the tides without crashing into the rocks he has found in the foggy, stormy night. Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you ... Stolyarov! (the crowd roars as if their home team has just won the national championship)

Stolyarov: (the crowd immediately turns silent out of enormous respect) Thank you, thank you.

An elderly man from the crowd yells (which breaks the silence): You have expanded our minds! (crowd roars)

A very young girl (remembering what she overheard her parents saying about Mr. Stolyarov's contributions): And we are forever grateful to you! (crowd now jumping up and down - Sto-lyar-ov!, Sto-lyar-ov!)

A young man: So what will you do now, Mr. Stolyarov? (tense silence immediately holds the crowd in eager stasis)

Stolyarov (pleased that he has participated in human evolution, not to mention getting some credit for it): Ladies & Gentleman, true freedom only exists under the umbrella of wisdom. It only exists insofar as the borders of wisdom are pushed ever outward. I plan to push this canopy and continue on striving for excellence and truth. I plan to give you ... more ... F-R-E-E-D-O-M! (the crowd goes completely ballistic with exhuberation)

Mr. Stolyarov turns away from the microphone and, as he is walking off of the stage, he catches the eye of a stranger that he feels that he knows somehow. He realizes something, reaches into his pocket and, with the thunderous roar of admiration from the crowd behind him, begins waving something in front of the stranger's face. It is a chess piece - a King. This stranger, apparently perturbed by the gesture, makes a vain attempt to try to snatch the King from Stolyrov's hand, which is pulled away with lightning quickness and a cunning grin. He remarks to the stranger: "Maybe you will be able to take this from my hand in the future, young Stolyarovian Learner, but that is not a certainty!"

He puts his hand on the stranger's shoulder and, glancing at the still-thunderous crowd says: "After all, what color is the sky in your world, Deep Blue?"

-Yes, yes it is



Post 102

Thursday, July 3, 2003 - 4:41pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Stolyarov,

I concede that you have argued well on empirical grounds for a "law of pregnancy". After all, there is verifiable truth in that premise.

But to go from Man-made to Metaphysical and back again, claiming that the Man-made parts (insemination & parturition) must serve the "intentions" or "will" of the Metaphysical part (gestation) is not a valid inference of this law, not in the context of rational human life.

I agree that human life is a good, Mr. Stolyarov. But I feel that you are guilty of "process-worship", worshipping the very process of forming new human life; regardless of consequences, such as what it would take to live a happy life.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Stolyarov: Would you hold your position if the mother (and her offspring) were doomed to suffer unhappy life in a concentration camp?

Ed



Post 103

Thursday, July 3, 2003 - 6:28pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Stoylarov: “This futuristic certainty is defined as inevitable development in the absence of volitional human or circumstantial (i.e. non-human or non-volitional human) interventions into the process whereby this development occurs.”

A fetus will NOT inevitably develop into a human being "in the absence of volitional human ... interventions". Quite the opposite. The fetus will NOT develop into a "being capable of acting on the deliberate instructions of its own mind" unless the pregnant woman positively acts, BY HER OWN VOLITION, to maintain her OWN life until the time of the birth. As any objectivist should know, human life does not sustain itself automatically. Consequently, unless the woman supplies "volitional intervention", the fetus is doomed, and so by your own definition there is no future certainty of development and the fetus cannot be considered a human being.

Alas, this is not the issue. The debate about whether a fetus is a human being is completely irrelevant. To illustrate:

MR. STOLYAROV: "Your response to my response to the rape scenario completely ignores the fact that force can legitimately be employed only against its initiator, and the fetus had not initiated force. It had not even selected to be in the position it is in, and hence cannot be punished. The violated rights of the victim need to be addressed via the termination of the rapist, NOT the fetus."

Herein lies the real issue. You, Mr. Stolyarov, state that force may only be employed against its initiator, yet you support the fetus' "right" to force the COMPLETELY BLAMELESS woman, through the coercive power of government, to use her body as a host for the fetus until the time of its birth. But the woman's body is HER OWN property, and NOT the property of the fetus (irrespective of whether or not the fetus is a human being, and has rights). There is no right to support your life by the unconsenting use of another's property. The fact that the fetus needs the woman's body in order to live is irrelevant. "Need" is never a legitimate claim to someone else's life or property. The fetus has no legitimate claim to ONE MINUTE of the use of the woman's womb, let alone the nine months required for the fetus to become physically independent.

A woman who has an abortion is merely exercising her right to withdraw the use of her body from one who does not own it. The fact that this necessitates the death of the fetus (if it is even alive to begin with) does not change the issue in any way.



Post 104

Friday, July 4, 2003 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
MR. THOMPSON: I concede that you have argued well on empirical grounds for a "law of pregnancy". After all, there is verifiable truth in that premise.

But to go from Man-made to Metaphysical and back again, claiming that the Man-made parts (insemination & parturition) must serve the "intentions" or "will" of the Metaphysical part (gestation) is not a valid inference of this law, not in the context of rational human life.

MR. STOLYAROV: Here we must indeed pay attention to the Metaphysical and Man-made “stages” of a human being’s development.

The ACT of conception can occur only by human choice, the choice of one human being at least (but preferably two). Hence, it cannot be mandated, it cannot be granted the status of futuristic certainty, and it cannot be viewed as an all-encompassing moral obligation (though it can be a moral asset in a particular context, i.e. in that of a parent who views the raising of children as a value to his own existence).

Thus, I agree that no futuristic certainty exists prior to the actual fertilization process. Afterward, however, the province of the Man-made ends, and man can no longer affect the process of pregnancy, no matter how greatly he wishes it, except by terminating it (which qualifies for a futuristic certainty). The woman’s bodily processes that result in the fetus’s creation are reflexive and outside of her control. Moreover, the stages through which a fetus progresses are also reflexive and outside of its control. They are set forth by the fetus’s genome, which, through pure biochemical (not detached spiritual) means dictates how they should proceed.

Thus, this process can be dubbed Metaphysical for all further consideration. Nor is WILL an inherent part of it, as will can only exist in a Man-made process.

Here I must refer to a category of causation discovered by our friend, Aristotle, efficient causation, that, which, in Rand’s and Aristotle’s view, exists only in the processes of nature. Efficient causation, in the metaphysical sense, is nothing but an interplay of chemical reactions leading inexorably, by the nature of their successive products (in an environment conductive to their formation) to the development of a volitional consciousness. The genome is not a MIND OF ITS OWN directing this process, but rather a REFLEXIVE MECHANISM that guides it via efficient causation to a predictable end. (Though, it must be said, this reflexive process is the prerequisite for the formation of a mind.)

Seeing as you, Mr. Thompson, have conceded the law of pregnancy, you have relegated it to the realm of efficient causation (by the very fact of it being non-volitional, as final causation can never be considered a natural law) and thus outside the province of a WILL or the man-made.

MR. THOMPSON: I agree that human life is a good, Mr. Stolyarov. But I feel that you are guilty of "process-worship", worshipping the very process of forming new human life; regardless of consequences, such as what it would take to live a happy life.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Stolyarov: Would you hold your position if the mother (and her offspring) were doomed to suffer unhappy life in a concentration camp?

MR. STOLYAROV: My answer to your question is a resounding YES. It should be the child's choice, once alive (and an adult) whether or not to continue his existence, whether or not hope remains to be liberated from the concentration camp (as many Holocaust victims had been within a timeframe of several years) or whether to perish by refusing to give his oppressors the fruits of his labor (and thereby almost inevitably becoming a victim of execution). It is never anyone else's prerogative to give "substituted consent" for another death.

For this point, see the essay of my colleage, Mr. Edmund Daleford, "Rethinking the Validity of Assisted Suicide:"

http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/rethinkingassistedsuicide.html

I quote:

"To advocate the idea that an individual holds a property in himself implies, automatically, that no one else does. "No one else" includes parents, spouses, children, siblings, and physicians. Even those assuming legal guardianship over an individual without full capacity to exercise his volitional consciousness (such as a child who is suffering severe physical/cognitive deformities) cannot negate the fact that they do not own the individuals they steward. Philosopher John Locke, in examining the nature of parental oversight, for example, observed that, while parents can legitimately restrict children from those undertakings for which their minds are not yet adequately developed, they cannot deprive them of property already held. The food, shelter, and physical safety that parents have granted their children are property of the children, as are the children's lives and bodily integrity. While a father can forbid a child to attend a decadent party, he cannot beat him or kill him. He must discipline to prevent the commission of harm, not to inflict it, for whatever considerations."

Happiness is a consequence of life, and a life pursued as the highest value. Happiness is not the purpose of life, according to Objectivism, but rather it is the state attained by pursuing life as a purpose, as, indeed, the highest purpose. Hence, I cannot treat it as a consideration antecedent to life itself.

I shall continue my response at a later time.



Post 105

Friday, July 4, 2003 - 9:07pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
On Hegelian Logic:

This, in my observation, is the excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which is most relevant to Mr. Thompson’s association of the elevation of the process of becoming to a rights-worthy state as consequential of Hegel’s “new” or “transcendental” logic:

“Thus, while “being” and “nothing” seem both absolutely distinct and opposed, from another point of view they appear the same as no criterion can be invoked which differentiates them. The only way out of this paradox is to posit a third category, “becoming,” which seems to save thinking from paralysis because it accommodates both concepts: “becoming” contains “being” and “nothing” since when something “becomes” it passes, as it were, between nothingness and being. That is, when something becomes it seems to posses aspects of both being and nothingness.”

Mr. Stolyarov: [clang… clang…] You expected me to counterattack with Hegelian reasoning as my tactic [clang… clang]. To outmaneuver you, I shall employ a variant which is quite more… shall I say… Stolyarovian! [clang… clang] Certainly, no pre-furnished move can counter this one!

In Hegel’s view, there is an intermediate stage between non-existence (the absence of an entity) and its full presence, and because becoming possesses both concepts of being and nothingness, it is on a cognitively higher level and deserves greater consideration (in application to the abortion debate, the rights of the fetus, Hegel would have said, would supercede those of the mother).

But… [clang… clang, as Mr. Thompson dodges a side thrust that he had spotted only at the last moment] nothingness and being cannot be judged as coequal states or concepts. Nothingness is not an entity, nor a quality, but rather the ABSENCE thereof. One cannot posit the combination of a presence and an absence as higher in consideration than a full-scale presence.

Mr. Thompson: Aha! [clang… clang…] So you must concede then that the considerations of the fetus must be subordinate to the mother! (He retaliates with a daring lunge as the shields of Kant and Hegel are removed from his path.)

Mr. Stolyarov: My own trusty blade of Stolyarovian continuity shall fend for me better than these intrinsicist barriers! [clang… clang…] Remember, my friend, the distinction between the particular and the underlying. The process of becoming is the process of becoming something particular, an entity with particular prerogatives such as the right to property and the application of his own person. But the underlying right to life is necessitated by the very notion of becoming. The notion of becoming is not a “superior combination” of “something” and “nothing,” but rather the REARRANGEMENT OF ELEMENTS (not spontaneous formation from a vacuum) via the processes of efficient causation (in this case). We are evaluating not “presence” vs. “absence,” but something more specific, “the presence of the entity in certain crucial respects” and “the absence of other derivative respects that define that entity.” As time progresses, the presence expands its realm into the void that is the absence, and, as such, acquires more rights and a higher consideration.

But, in the meantime, if a conflict of underlying rights should exist, the mother’s right to exist must trump that of the fetus, so long as the latter is inextricably attached to her, because being, by virtue of a greater presence of essential human faculties, is indeed on a higher level than becoming.

Your assault has left an opening, Mr. Thompson. By arguing that being is superior to becoming, you are in fact fueling my case (as this is compatible with my argument). After all, what is the "becoming entity" becoming?

[To be continued… For the time being, all is frozen in temporal stasis :)]



Post 106

Saturday, July 5, 2003 - 12:25pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
MR. THOMPSON:
In this respect, the human genome becomes nothing other than the Designer's handwriting. The Designer's signature on a "purchase order" for a "particular product". Such signatures are certain (as well as the intentional meaning behind them), but the filling of these "orders" rests on the larger nature of the system. Alas, another certainty must arise in order to act on this premise.

MR. STOLYAROV: Simply because the genome’s interaction with chemicals within the womb ultimately leads to the same result in all instances where conductive conditions exist does not mean that there exists a process of final or intentional causation with an end in mind. Once again, both you and I agree that the Law of Pregnancy is a metaphysical, scientifically predictable process (under such conditions as typically occur in the womb of a healthy mother). The mind does not yet exist; it is a consequence of the process.

Occam’s Razor destroys any possible appeal to consciousness in this case, just as it must in any instance of “divine intervention.” If the cosmic Mind was the cause of the genome, what was the cause of the cosmic Mind? It must have been initiated via efficient causation, since no mind could have existed before the Mind existed. This argument is circular, self-defeating, and thus we are forced to reject it (as not the simplest logically possible explanation of the phenomenon).

My navigation of the tides has indeed been successful, thanks in part to you, Mr. Thompson. I am reminded of the story of Odysseus and his treacherous voyage through the Aegean, where on one side he would have to dodge Scylla (Hegel), the gargantuan sea monster that would bite at the ship with its six heads, and Charybdis (Plato), the creature that relishes in drawing unwary ships into a perilous whirlwind (of floating abstractions :)), as well as the Isle of the Sirens (Kant), which lures the naïve toward it by the beautiful (but treacherous) singing emanating therefrom.

It is this last obstacle that I presently seek to bypass, now that I have been informed of it.
I myself, too, had once been an admirer of Kant, especially in the man’s advocacy of free enterprise, scientific/technological progress, individual moral agency, and reason as a means of comprehending the physical world. I do not concur with the “orthodox Randians” in regard to the EVIL of Kant; I rather think that Old Immanuel was thoroughly, but honestly (driven by a tacit acceptance of the body/mind dichotomy between the Newtonian sciences which he excelled in and the question of moral law), mistaken in such issues as his “transcendental idealism,” “morality of duty,” and his postulation of the twelve categories as limitations to the realm of human reason. Of course, it must be added, that, due to extrapolations upon Kant by later philosophers such as Hegel and Marx, the consequences of this ideology were disastrous.

Kant’s transcendental idealism did amount to the detachment of value from valuer by placing it in “things in themselves,” with the derivative consequence that morality was postulated as a grim compulsion of duty detached from any personal consideration or better judgment.

But this is not the case in the theory of futuristic certainty or Stolyarovian continuity. When I answer the question: “The fetus’s continued existence, a value to whom and for what?” my primary answer is “to the fetus, for whatever pursuits he may employ it during his later existence.” His life is the necessary prerequisite for the entirety of the activities that he will pursue later on; it is the only standard on which valuation makes sense, or WILL make sense (via the processes of futuristic certainty/efficient causation).

Remember, value does not exist in a stasis, i.e. only in the present. One may look at a patch of barren ground, and state that it is of value to no one; no resources are to be found beneath it, no sane man would construct a private residence there. But then comes along the industrialist with the newest terraforming technologies and sees this same piece of land as a future blooming paradise, with his bioengineering laboratory as the centerpiece. This land is ALREADY of value to him, due to its underlying nature in regard to the development of the industrialist’s design (the difference here is one of continuums; this scenario is a volitional dynamic continuum, the pregnancy is a futuristic certainty continuum). But we still keep in mind the results that will occur in the future; because of efficient or final causation, a present value will eventually take hold.

But, Mr. Thompson might say, the industrialist already has a mind that is able to conduct such valuation, whereas the fetus in his first two trimesters has no such apparatus. What positive affirmation have we that his further existence will indeed be perceived by him as a value? My answer is fundamental indeed, the law of non-contradiction.

While the mind is still developing and only its blueprint has been established, the entirety of the fetus’s bodily processes are vigorously pursuing (though by efficient causation, but that still does not alter the fact) the condition of life; aside from chance interventions of unforeseen circumstances, the fetus will not self-terminate. The genome’s dynamic interaction with its building blocks will not lead to its disintegration, but rather to the opposite, the fortification of sound bodily processes in every respect. To state that this organism would not be content to live while it is devoted entirely to the task, EVEN in the absence of consciousness, is to state that a man’s purpose in life is to die, it is to imply that A is not A and to deny the evidence of one’s eyes. (This, by the way, is also why death cannot be a value, why, when man is faced with the fundamental alternative, only one course that he chooses can be moral. The other is a brazen and overt contradiction.)

I refer you once again to Mr. Daleford’s essay on the impossibility of moral “substituted consent.” When an entity, such as a terminally ill, brain-dead, or unborn individual cannot authorize his own termination, it is a logical contradiction to presume that he “would wish” to die, when the evidence of his every bodily process demonstrates the contrary.

Once again, I must thank you for your extensive praise and your recognition of the immense broadening of the participants’ cognitive faculties that this debate is bringing about. I am thoroughly satisfied to encounter a challenge from one who uses his mind to the fullest. After all, it is only by default that the good can lose the intellectual battle for freedom and truth.



Post 107

Saturday, July 5, 2003 - 12:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
MR. GORDON: . "Need" is never a legitimate claim to someone else's life or property. The fetus has no legitimate claim to ONE MINUTE of the use of the woman's womb, let alone the nine months required for the fetus to become physically independent.

MR. STOLYAROV: This argument smacks of the Rothbardian claim that the mother has the right to “evict” a human being from her body at any time, despite the fact of that being’s biological dependence. It is the same logic that justifies child abandonment (contrary to Rothbard’s intent, but very much in accord with that of the lesser members of the brazenly hypocritical and anti-freedom Libertarian Party).

See “An Open Letter to Murray Rothbard” by Doris Gordon for a thorough response (I assume that the same last names are entirely coincidental):

http://www.l4l.org/library/rothopen.html

Moreover, this viewpoint absolutely neglects the nature and necessity of PARENTAL OBLIGATION to a child who is not yet self-sustaining (nor will be until full adulthood).

I quote, once again, from “Nathaniel Branden: Questions and Answers:”
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/que02.html

“A child is the responsibility of his parents, because (a) they brought him into existence, and (b) a child, by nature, cannot survive independently. (The fact that the parents might not have desired the child, in a given case, is irrelevant in this context; he is nevertheless the consequence of their chosen actions-a consequence that, as a possibility, was foreseeable.)

The essence of parental responsibility is: to equip the child for independent survival as an adult. This means, to provide for the child's physical and mental development and wellbeing: to feed, clothe and protect her; to raise her in a stable, intelligible, rational home environment, to equip him intellectually, training him to live as a rational being; to educate him to earn his livelihood (teaching him to hunt for instance, in a primitive society; sending him to college, perhaps, in an advanced civilization). When the child reaches the age of legal maturity and/or when she has been educated for a career, parental obligation ends. Thereafter, parents may still want to help their child, but he or she is no longer their responsibility. “

MR. GORDON:
A fetus will NOT inevitably develop into a human being "in the absence of volitional human ... interventions". Quite the opposite. The fetus will NOT develop into a "being capable of acting on the deliberate instructions of its own mind" unless the pregnant woman positively acts, BY HER OWN VOLITION, to maintain her OWN life until the time of the birth. As any objectivist should know, human life does not sustain itself automatically. Consequently, unless the woman supplies "volitional intervention", the fetus is doomed, and so by your own definition there is no future certainty of development and the fetus cannot be considered a human being.

MR. STOLYAROV: We presume rationality on the part of human beings (especially when we speak of them in general terms, such as ALL MOTHERS) unless proven otherwise in a PARTICULAR (and only that) instance (and only to that instance can any derivative conclusions to the contrary apply). Hence, we presume that all human beings desire to pursue their lives unless they inform us to the contrary, in which case (see Daleford v. Stolyarov: A Euthanasia Debate, http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Euthanasia_Debate.html ) their outright wish to kill themselves will inevitably reciprocate into a violation of other beings’ rights. This is especially evident in the context of a suicidal pregnant mother, who, by no fault of the fetus, endangers his life as well as her own. In this context, it is proper for the state to restrain the mother from her suicidal tendencies at least until the time of the child’s birth (after which it will likely be unsafe for the child to remain around the mother, so adopting him out is the best solution).

I quote:

”Life does not belong to God or to society. It belongs to the individual. However, the individual possesses no right to violate the rights of others. In committing suicide within a home that one shares with his relatives, one is violating the relatives' right of free association. (No one honestly would wish to clean up blown-out brains or a pool of blood, and in this case, the suicidist is no longer capable of paying for the "service".) In the case of euthanasia, the doctor is violating the patient's right to life (by defying the Hippocratic Counsel), and so is the patient's family forced to violate his rights (by parasitically thriving on his death). Moreover, the family's right to liberty is being violated, since each individual relative of the suicidist no longer possesses the authority to preclude the breach of integrity which has transformed him into a parasite. Suicide is not a demonstration of self-ownership, but rather one of anti-selfish destruction.”

Since suicide (except on a desert island devoid of any possibility of contact with other human beings) is an inherent violation of others’ rights, it, along with abortion, should remain illegal. Hence, in the context of the pregnancy, it is a woman’s legal obligation to both abstain from immediately destroying herself (though the law should not proscribe gradual means of self-destruction, such as excessive alcohol or sugar consumption) and from at all harming her child.



Post 108

Sunday, July 6, 2003 - 6:32pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Oh, Mr. Stolyarov, you are so very wrong. You've presented so many false arguments (yours and others) that I don't know where to start.

I know nothing of Murray Rothbard or Doris Gordon (yes, the name is a "coincidence" - my first name is Gordon:)) other than that link you posted which seems to not even address my position, but rather Rothbard's internal inconsistencies.

I don't think I'm going to get into a serious debate with you and try to refute all your points, as I think it is a waste of my time and yours. I don't think you are open to changing your position on abortion. And if I can expect that any subsequent arguments on your part are to be similar to what I've read from you on the Rational Argumentator, you have no chance of changing my position.

For the record, I don't think you are really an objectivist. It's your argument on euthanasia which really got me. Killing yourself inherently a violation of the rights of others? Because they might have to clean up after you? You state that life belongs to the individual, but you require the potential prolonging of suffering for the sake of family members? As if they somehow have a right to your life? The doctor violating the patient's rights by doing the patient's bidding? This is so nonsensical that it would be laughable - but for the fact that it comes from someone who labels himself an objectivist. "Each individual relative of the suicidist no longer possesses the authority to preclude the breach of integrity which has transformed him into a parasite"? What does that sentence even mean? To paraphrase Lisa Simpson, I know those words, but that statement makes no sense.

Not that this is relevant to anything, but I did used to be an passionately dedicated "pro-life" objectivist. I rejected the position, without much difficulty, when I realized my logical errors came to the conclusion that forbidding an abortion was in conflict with my principles.

Good luck, Mr. Stolyarov, in your anti-abortion crusade. I hope someday you realize your errors. The truth will set you free.



Post 109

Sunday, July 6, 2003 - 6:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Correction:

"when I realized my logical errors came to the conclusion" should read "when I realized my logical errors, AND came to the conclusion"



Post 110

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Stolyarov,

…an aside (to break up the tired monotony of an utterly boring ethical debate):

I have been refraining from mentioning a particular ethical dilemma which may turn out to be a real idea-buster regarding your ideas of “futuristic certainty” and of the inferences supposedly allowed for the “law of pregnancy”.

The reason that I have waited so long to bring this one to light is because of its overuse and non-originality (it is virtually a tired, worn-out dilemma by now). It is the old “Semen-on-the-ceiling, egg-on-a string, nude-handstand” scenario (I’m sure that you’ve heard this one many times by now, but please bear with me – if for nothing else, then for the sake of rational argumentation).

As it has been a long time since I have heard this one, I will attempt to re-create it to the best of my memory (corrections are indeed welcome). Keep in mind that, although particulars may seem irrelevant and of questionable plausibility, it is the underlying logic of the analogy that is meant to be put under scrutiny here (the underlying logic is pivotal, not particulars). It goes something like this:

Suppose for an instance (which may, in itself, require considerable virtue) that a modicum of semen is located on the ceiling of the bedroom (never-mind how it got there, it is Man-made, merely a “particular”, and inconsequential with respect to underlying logic).

Suppose also that there is an ovum (egg) suspended by a string just below the semen on the ceiling. A single sperm has just fell away from the others in the semen and falls toward the egg (a metaphysical primary called the “law of gravity” has taken charge of this sperm’s fate). As it collides with the egg, the string begins to jostle and it will eventually break. Just before the string breaks, the sperm penetrates the egg and the egg-sperm complex, or zygote, starts to fall (again, only because of the “law of gravity”).

Beneath the falling sperm-egg complex, there is a fertile young woman (who happens to be in the middle of her menstrual cycle) who is performing a handstand in the nude (she had heard that nude handstands performed in the mornings before breakfast were productive and life-affirming, and allowed one to get in touch with the “vital life force” of her ancestors, or something like that).

You must use your imagination to guess at exactly where the sperm-egg complex falls, but nevertheless, it enters the woman’s cervical orifice and lands embedded into her fertile endometrium.

This entire process follows predictably from the “law of gravity” as it has been outlined. Plausibility is a particular and should be rejected as a disqualifier. To interrupt the “futuristic certainty” of gestation, one would have to interrupt the metaphysical “law of gravity”. Conceding that you may refute the first “free-fall” (sperm only, before contact with egg) as an antecedent to the “Union of the Gametes” (as a “pre-conception” event), what would you say about interrupting the second “free-fall” (the zygote’s fall), as it’s fate is being governed by the “law of gravity”, which is a metaphysical primary?

I say “Go ahead, interrupt this “law of gravity” if you aren’t ready for a pregnancy”. Would you disagree with me on this, Mr. Stolyarov?

Ed



Post 111

Tuesday, July 8, 2003 - 8:52pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Stolyarov,

You continue to impress me with reasoning that seems impervious to refutation. However, my guess is that the “skill of the captain” is masking the “permeability of the ship”. I will now attempt to bring out a secret weapon that I had previously dared not use, due to its destructive qualities (I prefer to annihilate the idea, leaving the man behind it intact). Unbeknownst to you, I have initiated the rumor that your idea on abortion is indeed a Vampire Idea (an idea that just won’t die). I will now carry this seemingly absurd notion to logical fruition by attempting to scare it right out of your head. I call this method: “The Scarecrow”, and for reasons that are not altogether obvious, even to the astute reader.

So what is this so-called Scarecrow?

It can be likened to an amusement park ride that is built around a “haunted house” theme where you are pulled in a cart through the dark, winding corridors metaphorically representing an idea or its corollaries. It is meant to serve as a horrifyingly absurd example of the implications of conviction to a particular idea (it is meant to scare an idea right out of your mind).

Strap yourself in, Mr. Stolyarov, and please do not attempt to exit the cart during the ride, as this may lead to personal injury. If you begin to feel nauseous or queasy, then close your eyes and count to 10. Here we goooooo! ….

As the cart sits motionless (with the skeptical Mr. Stolyarov who’s not sure that he will get his money’s worth for the scare) it is suddenly jerked forward by the chain that pulls the cart through the haunted mansion known as Stolyarovityville Horror (as if the chain itself is attempting to show you who is in charge here and where your reasoning leads).

As the cart is pulled forward into the front door of the mansion, a skeleton in a toga leans out from the shadows and, in a creepy Socratic voice, proclaims: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads … wherever it leads … wherever it leads …”

Okay, at this point Mr. Stolyarov is a little scared, but he knows that he’s in for the ride, so he calmly sits back and begins to mentally differentiate & integrate data presented to him, keeping in mind both the context & dynamics at play here.

He is pulled forward into the Hall of Premises and hears the following:

since a process that proceeds to a predictable conclusion without intervention is a metaphysical primary,

and even though any single conception doesn’t lead to a predictably-successful single parturition more than about 50% of the time (and about 75% of the time, at best), we will continue to call it an “efficient cause” and hope that this inconsistency in our reasoning is overlooked,
and, using this spurious reasoning, we will go so far as to call this “not-much-more-than-a-flip-of-a-coin” probability by the name of: a “futuristic certainty”,

and, even if we have to sacrifice the certain comforts in actuality for this uncertain potentiality that only “tends toward an actuality”, then so be it (because we DEFINED it a “certainty”),

and we will dismiss the certain “comfort” of the potential mother by putting the word “comfort” in quotation marks as if that somehow reduces its relevance or value,

and we will invert the issues at hand, calling the comfort “potential”, and the motherhood “certain” and hope that no one was looking,

and we will ignore the potential ramifications of our idea of the state making women endure unwanted pregnancies, saying that these ramifications are only "potential" and the genome is a futuristically certainty human life,

and we will appeal to Aristotle because he was awfully smart, even if it means that we have to misapply his mechanical cause-and-effect law of efficient causation, which is not itself, efficient, in this context,

and even though the weight of our argument actually rests on Aristotle’s distinction of final causation, which can be interpreted here as “Nature’s intention”,

we will deny the validity of Primacy of Consciousness using Occam’s Razor, which only impresses the readers while missing the point that, even though we can logically invalidate the Primacy of Consciousness, we still rely on it for the strength of our inference of any kind of a “certainty”,


Therefore, we must accept our premises, not because they are sound and supportive of our pre-conceived conclusion, but because we have a tremendous aptitude for articulation and linguistic acrobatics, one which is able to shoot down rebuttals and deny that anyone could believe the contrary to these rebuttals, all the while secretly accepting them (because the weight of our argument rests solely on the intentional certainty of Nature).

…boo!

Ed



Post 112

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Thompson,

In response to your most hypothetical scenario, concerning the "futuristically certain" status of the embryo, refer back to my argument concerning the legitimacy of cloning and the fact that cloned embryos do not yet have a futuristically certain pathway to actualizing the humanity contained in the genome. They will not develop ABSENT intervention. Now, maintaining a handstand until the embryo falls does indeed classify as an intervention (most people cannot continue with a handstand for more than 2-3 seconds) which transcends the actions undertaken routinely to ensure one's survival (we assume, for purposes of futuristic certainty, that the mother will not passively acquiesce to death, but we cannot similarly assume any other action, especially an eccentric one, on her part, and still refer to the process of possible implantation as a futuristic certainty).

Whereas gravity is indeed a metaphysical primary, the woman's position is not, and its continuance requires her volitional intervention, rather than a mere reflexive functioning of her bodily processes.



Post 113

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 7:40pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
On reproductive success/failure ...

After researching the documented rate of reproductive failure (post-conception uncertainty of outcome), I must retract my initial estimate as it was most definitely optimistic. A more realistic rate of reproductive success (efficient post-conception outcome) is less than 50%.

Notice how this dramatically changes the dynamics of the situation as failure is more likely (more certain) than success is. The following excerpt is from The Quarterly Review of Biology:

“Among human pregnancies alone, over 50 per cent fail between conception and parturition, and the majority of these failures are unexplained.”

An abstract (a summary) may be viewed on your screen by pointing your browser to:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6686686&dopt=Abstract

(which may need to be actually pasted into the browser pointer, as the hyperlink itself may not function – something that happens with lengthy URLs)

A full citation of this article:

Wasser SK, Barash DP. Reproductive suppression among female mammals: implications for biomedicine and sexual selection theory. Q Rev Biol. 1983 Dec;58(4):513-38.

Ed



Post 114

Wednesday, July 9, 2003 - 7:47pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
On reproductive success/failure ...

After researching the documented rate of reproductive failure (post-conception uncertainty of outcome), I must retract my initial estimate as it was most definitely optimistic. A more realistic rate of reproductive success (efficient post-conception outcome) is less than 50%.

Notice how this dramatically changes the dynamics of the situation as failure is more likely (more certain) than success is. The following excerpt is from The Quarterly Review of Biology:

“Among human pregnancies alone, over 50 per cent fail between conception and parturition, and the majority of these failures are unexplained.”

An abstract (a summary) may be viewed on your screen by pointing your browser to:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6686686&dopt=Abstract

(which may need to be actually pasted into the browser pointer, as the hyperlink itself may not function – something that happens with lengthy URLs)

A full citation of this article:

Wasser SK, Barash DP. Reproductive suppression among female mammals: implications for biomedicine and sexual selection theory. Q Rev Biol. 1983 Dec;58(4):513-38.

Ed



Post 115

Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 4:20pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
MR. THOMPSON: and even though any single conception doesn’t lead to a predictably-successful single parturition more than about 50% of the time (and about 75% of the time, at best), we will continue to call it an “efficient cause” and hope that this inconsistency in our reasoning is overlooked,

and, using this spurious reasoning, we will go so far as to call this “not-much-more-than-a-flip-of-a-coin” probability by the name of: a “futuristic certainty”,

MR. STOLYAROV: The rate of particular failures of a pregnancy due to circumstantial intervention is irrelevant to the classification of the fetus’s development and would have been had it plunged to 1 or 0.0000000001 percent.

Let me present a parallel to illustrate this example. A man in Arkansas has just awakened from a coma, a “brain-dead” state after 19 years. The chances of this recovery (which is guided ultimately by the reflexive proceedings within the patient’s organism) are immensely small. Does this give any other man (including the patient’s doctor) to venture into his room with a knife and repeatedly stab him until no amount of medical assistance can bring about his revival? Once again, we must consider the fact that, because the man’s life (just like the fetus’s life) is of value to HIM, no other entity possesses any right to terminate it.

The fact that a probability of success is less than 50%, does not mean that any entity possesses the right to turn it into 0%.

Moreover, this entire realm of natural abortion is a non sequitur. If the embryo perishes in its early stages and the mother does not desire a child, is she not lucky (and does she not have a high probability of having her wishes fulfilled by a circumstance outside of her control, however harmful to the child)? Hence, unwilling mothers would not likely complain about high rates of natural abortions nor expose themselves to an abortion during the earliest stages of their pregnancies. Why go ahead with a gruesome, painful procedure when efficient causation can do the work for you?

Therefore, the cases in which an unwilling mother is likeliest to exercise “the right to choose” are those of a more developed fetus, which is already past the stage of greatest danger to its being from the elements.

Once again, we have scientific grounds by which to state that the Law of Pregnancy functions under certain conditions near which the bodily chemicals of the womb tend to be in circumstances that assume little or no accident or error (of which there can be thousands of sources, some of which, indeed, not yet identified). The fact that an error is not yet identified, however, does not render it UNIDENTIFIABLE and, eventually, curable for the purpose of maintaining conditions most optimal for the fetus’s development.

MR. THOMPSON: and we will dismiss the certain “comfort” of the potential mother by putting the word “comfort” in quotation marks as if that somehow reduces its relevance or value,

MR. STOLYAROV: A part of my article had addressed the fact that child-bearing is not a sacrifice and indeed a mutually beneficial value exchange. Therefore, the mother’s actions are a sacrifice only in her (flawed) perception. But this is not my main contention, which is that no conflict between particular and underlying rights can exist, that when an entity of futuristically certain volitional consciousness has been placed in the dependence on another by acts outside of his will (indeed, by efficient causation), the host entity has no legitimate particular rights that profess to undermine the underlying right of the dependent entity to exist. (Note that this does not apply to beggars, moochers, or any adult dependents, who have volitionally placed themselves in that state and do not necessarily need the host’s support to survive).

MR. THOMPSON: and we will invert the issues at hand, calling the comfort “potential”, and the motherhood “certain” and hope that no one was looking,

MR. STOLYAROV: If physical comfort during a pregnancy is what you refer to, pregnancies which occur under conditions most suitable to the process (and are assisted by pain-relieving medicines in this day and age) bring almost no disturbance of it. It is fairly certain, given the absence of circumstantial intervention that prevents the fetus from developing properly. If a pregnancy is life-threatening (or even capable of causing permanent injury), then, indeed, we have an underlying violation of rights and the fetus can be aborted. But only then.

MR. THOMPSON: and we will ignore the potential ramifications of our idea of the state making women endure unwanted pregnancies, saying that these ramifications are only "potential" and the genome is a futuristically certainty human life

MR. STOLYAROV: I think I have amply replied to this claim in earlier posts. Besides, this issue is entirely irrelevant to the fundamentals of the debate. If the fetus is indeed a human being, the state has full rights to enforce his welfare by ANY MEANS NECESSARY (so long as the rights of innocents are not violated, but that is not a valid means in any case). If he is not, then the state has no such rights. This is what the issue ultimately depends on.

MR. THOMPSON: and we will appeal to Aristotle because he was awfully smart, even if it means that we have to misapply his mechanical cause-and-effect law of efficient causation, which is not itself, efficient, in this context,

MR. STOLYAROV: How is a process with scientific predictability not efficiently caused? Does one step not lead to the next in a sequence that can be foretold given knowledge of the particular circumstances of the pregnancy?

(If, someday, it becomes possible to predict with full confidence that an embryo will indeed be naturally aborted in the particular situation, then, in that particular case, there is no futuristic certainty and the mother is permitted to accelerate the process, if she does not wish to bear a child. However, since many particular circumstances are not known, and each particular situation is DIFFERENT in its circumstances, we cannot give EVERYONE the right to abort. That should be reserved only for particular cases in which underlying rights are jeopardized or futuristic certainty does not, with certainty , exist.)

MR. THOMPSON: and even though the weight of our argument actually rests on Aristotle’s distinction of final causation, which can be interpreted here as “Nature’s intention”,

we will deny the validity of Primacy of Consciousness using Occam’s Razor, which only impresses the readers while missing the point that, even though we can logically invalidate the Primacy of Consciousness, we still rely on it for the strength of our inference of any kind of a “certainty”,

MR. STOLYAROV: I have denied the Primacy of Consciousness precisely because I do not NEED it for my argument. If we state, for example, that a racecar launched at a high speed onto a sharp, unbanked, unprotected curve will, absent human control, race straight off of it, we are using the Law of Inertia, which, like the Law of Pregnancy, follows the principle of efficient causation. But what if a strong wind comes along on a given trial and, by sheer coincidence, propels the car through the curve, contrary to our expectations? Does this still deny 1) the certainty of the underlying principle and 2) the fact that the phenomenon can occur without divine intervention or that of any consciousness whatsoever?

The simplest interpretation of futuristic certainty does not require an initiating consciousness.



Post 116

Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Thompson,

It is currently time for me to venture onto the offensive, by presenting a story of the logical implications of the stance that only those who possess a volitional consciousness here and now can be considered rights-possessing human beings.

X. Quintus Grummond is a biotechnology magnate in the near future, who has amassed a gargantuan and unprecedented fortune by commercializing cloning and genetic disease-treating technologies. He has always maintained himself in splendid health, and his hierarchy of values is unobjectionable; he places his personal life and well-being first, and the sole purpose of his wealth is to lengthen its duration and quality indefinitely.

X. Quintus Grummond also possesses an unfortunate abundance of heirs, with the major one being his hedonistic playboy son, Oswald. Oswald is of the people-pleasing type and possesses a knack for guessing others’ expectations precisely, including those of his father. Since early childhood, Oswald has feigned genuine interest in science, truth, and business, as well as a devotion to expanding the fortune he would inherit into even further record territory. However, his sole purpose, his one lifelong dream to be accomplished after his father’s death, is to purchase every monster truck and racecar in the country, as well as a horde of showgirls, rappers, drug dealers, rabid environmentalists, and a football-field full of champagne bottles, and hold the most raucous and Dionysian spectacle of orgy and destruction the world has ever seen. Since Oswald is absolutely incompetent in every respect, he yearns, within the most arcane reaches of his scheming mind, for his father’s prompt and speedy death. Yet X. Quintus Grummond has a different plan in mind.

In his will, Mr. Grummond has specified clearly what fraction of his fortune is to be allocated to whom, with Oswald, of whom he suspects nothing, to be receiving the principal chunk. However, in that same document, it was proclaimed that Mr. Grummond wishes to be sustained indefinitely on life support in the event of a terminal condition, regardless of the expense, even if this action were to bankrupt him.

Oswald is furious, but he has a devious recourse thought out, to be used when the time should come. It is an idea, a deadly idea which shall be unraveled later.

Several days following his ninety-fifth birthday in 2102, while out jogging on his private marathon trail, X. Quintus Grummond’s heart suddenly goes into fibrillation. The cause is simply the expiration of the mechanism, which has performed far more than the average amount of human heartbeats. Oswald dallies in calling the paramedics, and, besides, the marathon trail is immensely long and concealed at the sides and from the air by lush greenery. By the time emergency help locates Mr. Grummond, his brain has already suffered permanent damage from loss of blood and oxygen.

As per the detailed instructions in his will, Mr. Grummond is placed on superb life support that rejuvenates and restores to functionality every organ in his body, even his heart, which is infused with fresh muscle tissue to enable it to gradually recover its vitality; every organ, except one, the brain. Mr. Grummond is officially “brain dead.”

Oswald repeatedly seeks to sway Mr. Grummond’s physicians into issuing a Do Not Resuscitate order, but the doctors are swayed to the contrary by more potent persuasion, Mr. Grummond’s fortune and their million-dollar annual salaries. After a year, a plan is announced by a budding young bioengineer from Grummond Laboratories. Dr. Everett Waltonford has outlined a scheme for an half-electronic, half-organic artificial brain into which the entirety of Mr. Grummond’s memories, habits, ideas, and personality traits can be uploaded within another year. In effect, with the burgeoning field of biotechnology already rendering the remainder of his body secure from harm, this project, if successful, will render Grummond effectively immortal (as the brain can be reproduced multiple times) and deprive Oswald of any chances of employing his father’s fortune to realize his perverse fantasies. Oswald must act, and he must act now.

The younger Grummond (now in his sixties, and rapidly descending into a condition so sordid and unattractive that no courtesan will soon even look at him for a million dollars) calls forth a gathering of his distant relatives and the entire cadre of his lawyers, corners Dr. Waltonford and his staff, along with Mr. Grummond’s physicians, and unveils before them his brilliant treachery.

“You must terminate the entirety of your activities,” he proclaims to them, “by my command, as I am now the executor and heir of the greatest part of Mr. Grummond’s fortune, and my lesser endowed colleagues here fully support me in this demand. For, you see, upon entering a state of brain death, my father has ceased to be a legitimate, living human being. A living being requires the exercise of self-sustaining, self-generating action, a volitional consciousness which can be actualized, partway or in whole, immediately. My father is not merely asleep and capable of being awakened and resuming his state of consciousness at any time; if tapped on the shoulder, or even kicked about, he will not recover. He is just a chunk of meat that is eroding my comfort and quality of life. He is dead, DEAD I tell you!” Restraining that most untactful outburst, Oswald Grummond clears his throat and resumes. “A slab of inert tissue is a parasite on the rights and opportunities of the living. He does not repay his useless consumption of my resources with the immediate function of his mind, hence he is no longer anything but an exploiting corpse, which must be disposed of promptly.”

“But,” responds Dr. Waltonford with indignation, “it is absolutely not certain that his brain should not recover. Coma patients have, for example, resumed brain activity after years, even decades, of passivity. Moreover, my project is meticulously planned out. It is bound to bring in brain back into existence. I state this because I rely on the competence which my men have been observed to exert throughout their careers. While this triumph of technological achievement is not a metaphysical certainty, its progression does classify as a volitional dynamic continuum which, my will unchanged, will tend toward Mr. Grummond’s emergence into a state far healthier than yours, I might add.”

“A potential is NOT an actual!” Oswald erupts with rage, as he points with a jerking, fluctuating finger at a holographic screen in front of him, depicting a website forum from one hundred years ago, on which a group of early Objectivists had upheld the morality of abortion under that very standard against him who was, in Oswald’s opinion, a certain pretentious upstart who presumed that he could remedy a sacrosanct dichotomy inherent in stasis-thinking. “You see here, many of those who argued against Mr. Stolyarov had stated explicitly that, by that very same calculus, a brain dead person is no longer a human being and can be disposed of as any person endowed with substituted consent deems fit. Volitional consciousness in the present—that is the criterion, and my father does not meet it.”

Oswald, then, in ecstatic revelation of his deep-rooted savage emotionalism, erupts in a hyena-like frenzy of wheezing giggles (as the low villainous cackle does not quite fit his personality). While slightly disgruntled at this outburst, those present within the room are paralyzed into inaction, as most of them have tacitly accepted the validity of abortion as not to be questioned during the great Objectivist Renaissance of several decades earlier, when original Randian ideas were absorbed not discerningly or even fundamentally, but fully, along with all stances on particular issues.



Post 117

Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 5:38pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
How shall this story end? That must ultimately depend on the moral (and legal) premises held by the society of 2103. And those shall ultimately be shaped by the moral and legal premises held by the avant-garde thinkers of today.

But I forewarn that the standard Objectivist pro-abortion argument, extrapolated thus far by its very proponents, will lead to the tombstone, “X. Quintus Grummond, 2006-2103.”



Post 118

Friday, July 11, 2003 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Stolyarov,

Well … while I had hoped for some grand type of Hegelian synthesis (something resembling an epiphany), to arise out of our dialectical discussions, it appears that this was optimistic. I will post 2 more times regarding this debate:

1. One time in order to carry out through to completion my announced discussion-method (called Thompson’s Razor - where I am forced to “bet my life” on my ability to make explicit the fundamental or critical difference between our arguments)

2. And another time in order to (employing the majority of the neural synapses of which I am currently in charge of) provide an illustrative potential outcome in Stolyarovittyville (where genomes have the same underlying rights as volitionally-conscious, rational beings do).

Oh, and Mr. Stolyarov?: I suggest that you try to “beat me to the punch” on this last task - by offering up your own futuristic drama and in your own defense (the gloves have come off, my friend, so “put your dukes up” and protect your face – you see, I’d rather “fight fair”, if that is possible). Being a science fiction writer, this should not be difficult (this is an arena that you are quite familiar with).

While no one should feign futuristically-certain omniscience, I currently do not plan to post more than two more times on this issue (just the one showing you exactly how & why we each think like we do; and the other showing both a best- & worst-case scenario of our conclusions).

Ed



Post 119

Monday, July 21, 2003 - 8:29pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Thompson’s Razor (applied to the issue at hand) …

Ed (speaking to the curious aliens who want a “summary” of the debate): Mr Stolyarov believes that abortion “kills” a unique human life form or at least a pre-human, but a destined-to-be-in-the-future, unique human life form; and I believe that key definitions and inferences that support this notion are very questionable.


Questionable definition (item #1):
Human being (paraphrased definition subject to refinement): a being of past, actual, or futuristically certain, volitional consciousness

Refutation:
Leaving aside that this arbitrary re-definition would mean that Shakespeare IS a human being now (he IS because he WAS), let’s proceed directly by coming to a definition using a proper, validated method …

The Conceptual Common Denominator of “human being” may be (for the sake of argument) taken here as “volitional consciousness”. In this respect, and after measurement-omission, a “human” must have consciousness in SOME quantity, but may have consciousness in ANY quantity. A logical conclusion of the above is: No nervous system – No consciousness – No human (a zero value for consciousness disqualifies an entity as being a token of the category, or concept, of “human being”). In other words, an embryo or 1st trimester fetus is different from an individual human being in “kind”, not merely in “degree”.


Questionable inference (item #2):
a particular genome, in the absence of a poorly-defined concept he calls “intervention”, will lead to a particular human

Refutation:
A particular genome will not lead to a particular human. I quote from the American Journal of Medical Genetics (Am J Med Genet. 1996 Jan 22;61(3):216-28):

“Most monozygotic twin pairs are not identical”

As monozygotic twins have the same genome, the fact that even their fingerprints can be discordant proves that the “map” is not the “territory” (the genome is NOT an incorrigible, particular “recipe” for a particular individual). In short, in assuming that a mere genome is a futuristically certain human, the context must be dropped - genomes don’t exist as “static identities” in a vacuum, they are “defined, and refined” against the backdrop of the environment.


Questionable inference (item #3):
Children are always “worth it” (net gain in value to parents)

Refutation:
An excellent counter-example has to do with step-parents. Work by M. Daly & M. Wilson in the late 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s shows that only half of step-fathers have “parental feeling” toward their step-children and even less claim to “love” them (data on step-mothers is even worse, albeit less relevant to this particular issue at hand – only relevant if unwanted child is adopted out)


Questionable inference (item #4):
Any unwanted conception is the parents’ fault

Refutation:
Birth control is only about 99% effective, at best


“Fruitful” analogy for summation:
Digging up an apple seed is different from cutting down an apple tree

Ed



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.