Ethical dimensions of yousheng (healthy birth or eugenics ): the perspective of a Chinese ethicist.

Fun Fact:

Every 8 years, the ice extent in the Antarctic experiences growth that is equivalent to the size of Ireland (~80,000 sq. km). That's an extra 4 "Irelands" worth of ice in the last 32 years!

"Statistically significant" or not, that is one heck-of-a-lotta' extra ice that we have on Earth now.

Ed

Link:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838

Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/26, 5:03pm)

Post 21

Saturday, September 3, 2011 - 1:52pm

��Eugenics talk�� and the language of bioethics

"Non-autonomous belief formation"

A scientist argues that we shouldn't talk about eugenics, because it could lead to non-autonomous belief formation:

Excerpts (for later review):

Failure to respect autonomy (strictly, failure to respect autonomy without misleading): saying that x is F is neither false nor misleading, but nonetheless encourages non-autonomous belief-formation.

��

The idea here is that there are some ways of communicating that, without lying or misleading, fail to respect people��s autonomy: methods of communication that circumvent or neutralise people��s critical�Crational faculties.

��

Non-rational persuasion is, of course, ubiquitous and it would be wildly implausible to suggest that it is always wrong. However, it may be wrong in some circumstances, and it seems plausible to suppose that we usually respect people��s autonomy more when we use rational rather than non-rational persuasive means and that there should therefore be a presumption in favour of rational means.

��

Sometimes, when addressing bioethical issues, people use images to generate "moral intuitions". For example, there are numerous antiabortion and antivivisection websites that contain gruesome images of aborted fetuses and mutilated animals.

��

The problem with emotive language is that, like explicit images, it encourages people to disengage their critical�Crational faculties and to form moral views based on irrelevant or superficial features.

��

the claim being that eugenics talk, especially if part of a concerted effort to alter others�� moral beliefs, is a failure to fully respect people��s autonomy, because it attempts to circumvent their critical�Crational faculties.

��

The second objection says that it is acceptable to use emotive language when this is the best way of getting people to hold true beliefs. Perhaps this is not so much an objection to the Autonomy Argument as an independent argument against its conclusion and what we have here is a clash between competing values or principles: respect for people��s autonomy versus the desirability of true belief.

��

Moreover, for one person to impose views on another using non-rational persuasion smacks of a certain kind of arrogance, of a failure to recognise one��s own epistemic shortcomings (or the possibility of such shortcomings), and perhaps also of a certain cowardice about exposing one��s own ideas to rational critique. These are the kinds of concerns that people have about religious cults and charismatic political leaders: that they aim to promulgate their beliefs non-rationally, rather than offering them to us as candidates for independent critical assessment.

��

Thus, while (as I have conceded) the Autonomy Argument condemns some artistic works for their use of emotive language (when they aim, like propaganda, at belief-manipulation), it is not as puritanical as was suggested earlier, and it is compatible with a permissive view of much artistic emotive language.

Post 22

Sunday, September 4, 2011 - 12:02pm

According to the reasoning of the author (Stephen Wilkinson) above, when Rand used the emotive word "selfishness" in the title to her book "The Virtue of Selfishness", she was engaged in propaganda and not respecting others' autonomy. For rational people, words like "selfishness" and "eugenics" should be off-limits. You might even say, in an Orwellian tone, that the use of such emotive terms by rational people is "double-plus ungood." We are a divided people, with a rational side and an emotional side -- and ne'er the twain shall meet.

According to the author above, emotions and emotive terms (and images) short-circuit the reasoning process -- i.e., they "circumvent or neutralise people's critical-rational faculties" -- and, therefore, should be avoided (in rational discussions). So, if we are going to talk about eugenics, for instance, then we should avoid the term: eugenics. Maybe we should, instead, say something like: "double-plus good gene changing" when we refer to eugenics.

:-)

This is the rationale of the progressive socialists in America right now. Words like "Tea Party" and "freedom" are considered to be merely code-words for "racism" and bigotry." It's where you pick and choose words not for whether or not they explain or identify their actual subject material, but based on the emotions that they give rise to in other people's hearts and minds. It is the work of a second-handers, linguistic analysts, and social metaphysicians.

And it is bad science.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/04, 12:10pm)

Post 23

Sunday, September 4, 2011 - 12:47pm

Let's take a look a Mr. Wilkinson language. He writes, "...for one person to impose views on another..."

But an argument offered in a context that doesn't threaten the use of force, it isn't being imposed. Isn't using the language of force an example of the very emotive language he cautions against?
------------------

He writes, "...using non-rational persuasion smacks of a certain kind of arrogance, of a failure to recognise one's own epistemic shortcomings (or the possibility of such shortcomings), and perhaps also of a certain cowardice about exposing one's own ideas to rational critique."

Let's just ignore the equivocation around 'non-rational' (the use as with-passion being converted into without-logic - one of the things I love about Rand is how passionate her arguments could be with no loss of logic).

Instead lets look at the use of phrases like 'smacks of,' 'failure,' 'shortcomings,' and 'cowardice.' All those appear to be an emotion-laden, ad hominem attacks. And it ends with what the author seems to think of as a thing to be feared: 'Exposing one's ideas to rational critique'."
--------------------

The author doesn't appear to have much respect for these critical rational faculties he talks about. He seems to believe that the rest of us can't do what he thinks he can do - separate emotions from reasoning in an argument. How elite of him!
--------------------

He uses the word 'automous' but the heart of his thinking here is that emotive language bypasses any individual automony, goes right in as if there were no boundaries, no separation, no examination, and it just sets the individuals beliefs.
--------------------

He writes, "...eugenics talk, especially if part of a concerted effort to alter others' moral beliefs, is a failure to fully respect peoples' autonomy, because it attempts to circumvent their critical 'Crational' faculties."

This smells to me like the work-up to imposing censorship. Since people apparently are unable to stop this attack which violates their automony, they will need to be protected. So, we will have a group of elites that will identify these dangerous attacks so they can be banned.

What could be worse than a moral crusade of academic control-freaks who make up reasons for banning certain kinds of speech?

Post 24

Sunday, September 4, 2011 - 2:15pm

Steve,

The author doesn't appear to have much respect for these critical rational faculties he talks about. He seems to believe that the rest of us can't do what he thinks he can do - separate emotions from reasoning in an argument. How elite of him!

Good point.

This smells to me like the work-up to imposing censorship. Since people apparently are unable to stop this attack which violates their automony, they will need to be protected. So, we will have a group of elites that will identify these dangerous attacks so they can be banned.

What could be worse than a moral crusade of academic control-freaks who make up reasons for banning certain kinds of speech?

Right!

Ed

Post 25

Sunday, September 4, 2011 - 5:42pm

"A duty to provide society with ..."
**************************************************************

N Z Bioeth J. 2002 Oct;3(3):9-14.

Ethical dimensions of yousheng (healthy birth or eugenics): the perspective of a Chinese ethicist.

Tang K.

Source

Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.

Abstract

Yousheng meaning eugenics or healthy-birth and youyu meaning good-upbringing are necessary requirements for the development of human beings and therefore of humankind generally. There are enormous ethical issues involved in eugenics. An important task or calling of contemporary bioethics and ethics of population is to discuss these issues in order for people, even people in different countries and cultures, to reach some basic consensus and have practical ethical guidance. Based on the practice of yousheng in contemporary China, this paper offers a Chinese perspective on ethical dimensions of eugenics. It will argue that individuals, as members of society, have a duty to provide society with healthy and normal children. Moreover, this paper examines the relationships between the aim and the means and conflicts between collective value and individual value, in yousheng.
**************************************************************
Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15587510

Recap:
You 'owe it to society' to be up to a proper genetic- and behavioral code. Somehow, some 'philosopher kings' somewhere will determine whether you are up to code or not.

But you can't provide 'society' with anything. Society is not like some 'distant cousin' for which you can go Christmas shopping! And this isn't good science!

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/04, 6:34pm)

Post 26

Sunday, September 4, 2011 - 6:32pm

Julian Savulescu, bad scientist

***********************************************************

Bioethics. 2009 Jun;23(5):274-90.

The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life.

Savulescu J, Kahane G.

Source

University of Oxford - Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, St Cross College, St Giles, Oxford OX1 3LZ, United Kingdom. julian.savulescu@philosophy.oxford.ac.uk

Abstract

According to what we call the Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB),couples who decide to have a child have a significant moral reason to select the child who, given his or her genetic endowment, can be expected to enjoy the most well-being. In the first part of this paper, we introduce PB,explain its content, grounds, and implications, and defend it against various objections. In the second part, we argue that PB is superior to competing principles of procreative selection such as that of procreative autonomy.In the third part of the paper, we consider the relation between PB and disability. We develop a revisionary account of disability, in which disability is a species of instrumental badness that is context- and person-relative.Although PB instructs us to aim to reduce disability in future children whenever possible, it does not privilege the normal. What matters is not whether future children meet certain biological or statistical norms, but what level of well-being they can be expected to have.

***********************************************************
Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19076124

Recap:
Parents are morally obligated to genetically engineer their children.

***********************************************************

J Med Philos. 2010 Dec;35(6):656-69. Epub 2010 Nov 12.

Moral transhumanism.

Persson I, Savulescu J.

Source

Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford, UK.

Abstract

In its basic sense, the term "human" is a term of biological classification: an individual is human just in case it is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Its opposite is "nonhuman": nonhuman animals being animals that belong to other species than H. sapiens. In another sense of human, its opposite is "inhuman," that is cruel and heartless (cf. "humane" and "inhumane"); being human in this sense is having morally good qualities. This paper argues that biomedical research and therapy should make humans in the biological sense more human in the moral sense, even if they cease to be human in the biological sense. This serves valuable biomedical ends like the promotion of health and well-being, for if humans do not become more moral, civilization is threatened. It is unimportant that humans remain biologically human, since they do not have moral value in virtue of belonging to H. sapiens.

***********************************************************
Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21076074

Recap:
Being human isn't important, but acting in the precise way that Julian Savulescu happens to view as "moral" ... is.

***********************************************************

Bioethics. 2011 Jul 29. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01907.x. [Epub ahead of print]

GETTING MORAL ENHANCEMENT RIGHT: THE DESIRABILITY OF MORAL BIOENHANCEMENT.

Persson I, Savulescu J.

Source

G�teborg University, Sweden University of Oxford.

Abstract

We respond to a number of objections raised by John Harris in this journal to our argument that we should pursue genetic and other biological means of morally enhancing human beings (moral bioenhancement). We claim that human beings now have at their disposal means of wiping out life on Earth and that traditional methods of moral education are probably insufficient to achieve the moral enhancement required to ensure that this will not happen. Hence, we argue, moral bioenhancement should be sought and applied. We argue that cognitive enhancement and technological progress raise acute problems because it is easier to harm than to benefit. We address objections to this argument. We also respond to objections that moral bioenhancement: (1) interferes with freedom; (2) cannot be made to target immoral dispositions precisely; (3) is redundant, since cognitive enhancement by itself suffices.

***********************************************************
Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21797913

Recap:
The precise morality of Julian Savulescu ought to be genetically implemented or inculcated into humans.

Bad science. Bad ... bad science!

Ed

Post 27

Saturday, October 8, 2011 - 7:35pm

Another bit of bad science:

Evolutionary origins of human brain and spirituality.

Humans are not rational, they are emotional.

This is an instance of the false 'rational-emotional' dichotomy.

Ed

Post 28

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 - 1:36pm

Karl Mannheim, bad sociologist

This is my quick & dirty hit-piece on the man.

Wikipedia entry for Sociology of Knowledge:

Mannheim believed that relativism was a strange mixture of modern and ancient beliefs in that it contained within itself a belief in an absolute truth which was true for all times and places (the ancient view most often associated with Plato href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato">Plato) and condemned other truth claims because they could not achieve this level of objectivity (an idea gleaned from Marx href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx">Marx). Mannheim sought to escape this problem with the idea of 'Relationism href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationism">relationism'. This is the idea that certain things are true only in certain times and places (a view influenced by pragmatism) however, this does not make them less true. Mannheim felt that a stratum of free-floating intellectuals (who he claimed were only loosely anchored to the class structure of society) could most perfectly realize this form of truth by creating a "dynamic synthesis" of the ideologies of other groups.

Recap:
Mannheim wanted to change the names that people called him (from "relativist to "relationist") and, in doing so, just state outright that this means that it (he) has more clout and deserves more respect. This is like a child, altering a term and outright claiming that it is better because he said so. Think of the maturity level of a kid who says: "I am rubber and you are glue, whatever you say just bounces off me and sticks on you! Na na na na na naaa!" That is the immature level of argumentation cited above.

What other interpretation is there for someone who says he's not a relativist, but that he is "sort of" a relativist, but by a different name, so that it makes things better? That's like saying I'm not a murderer, I'm a "life-ender" -- and "life-enders" have more clout and are to be respected more (even though in practice, out in reality, there is simply no difference at all between the 2 names).

I'll add comments to these quotes later:

ideology signifies a phenomenon intermediate between a simple lie at one pole, and an error, which is the result of a distorted and faulty conceptual apparatus, at the other.

In our contemporary social and intellectual plight, it is nothing less than shocking to discover that those persons who claim to have discovered an absolute are usually the same people who also pretend to be superior to the rest. To find people in our day attempting to pass off to the world and recommending to others some nostrum of the absolute which they claim to have discovered is merely a sign of the loss of and the need for intellectual and moral certainty, felt by broad sections of the population who are unable to look life in the face.

Post 29

Thursday, December 8, 2011 - 9:53am

I wrote this blog entry this morning -- "Another Case of Fraud in University Research" (here) -- to expand a reply I posted to the "Strategy Profs" blogsite for sociologists of economics and organization management.

On the Strategy Profs blogsite (here) Prof. Freek Vermeulen (associate professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at the London Business School) wrote about the case of Diederik Stapel. Stapel earned a cum laude master�s (1991) and a cum laude doctorate (1997) from University of Amsterdam. He taught at the University of Groningen (2000-2006) and then the University of Tilburg, where he launched the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research. He was made dean of the social and behavioral sciences faculty in 2010. (Wikipedia here.) Then, it all fell apart.

In Vermeulen�s words: "For years � so we know now � Diederik Stapel made up all his data. He would carefully reiterature, design all the studies (with his various co-authors), set up the experiments, print out all the questionnaires, and then, instead of actually doing the experiments and distributing the questionnaires, made it all up. Just like that."

In my response on that blog site, I pointed out that loss of your degree is the appropriate remedy for academic fraud.

Post 30

Thursday, December 8, 2011 - 10:10am

Weekly Standard ran an interesting article about Stapel recently. The parallels to Michael Bellesisles, a historian who got caught at something similar, are hard to miss. One is that both the NY Times and LA Times were snookered, in both cases, into spreading the fabrications.

Post 31

Thursday, December 8, 2011 - 9:00pm

Thanks, Peter! That story mentioned the work of Prof. Leslie K. John of the Harvard Business School. Among her papers is this forthcoming publication:

John, Leslie K., George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec. "Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth-telling." Psychological Science (forthcoming).

Abstract: Cases of clear scientific misconduct have received significant media attention recently, but less flagrant transgressions of research norms may be more prevalent and in the long run more damaging to the academic enterprise. We surveyed over 2,000 psychologists about their involvement in questionable research practices, using an anonymous elicitation format supplemented by incentives for honest reporting. The impact of incentives on admission rates was positive and greater for practices that respondents judge to be less defensible. Using three different estimation methods, we find that the proportion of respondents that have engaged in these practices is surprisingly high relative to respondents' own estimates of these proportions. Some questionable practices may constitute the prevailing research norm.

Post 32

Saturday, May 19, 2012 - 10:58am

If you're poor, then you'll be a conservative thinker -- thinking that your poverty has something to do with your lack of ingenuity and drive -- in effect rationalizing your negative circumstance. However, if you're rich, you're more objective -- and you correctly realize that the only reason why you are rich is because of a rigged system:

***********************************

J Soc Psychol. 2007 Apr;147(2):137-57.

The role of social class in the formation of identity: a study of public and elite private college students.

Aries E, Seider M.

Source

Department of Psychology, Amherst College, Amherst, MA 01002-5000, USA. ejaries@amherst.edu

Abstract

The authors explored the influence of social class on identity formation in an interview study of 15 lower income students and 15 affluent students from a highly selective liberal arts school and 15 lower income students from a state college. Students ranked occupational goals as 1st in importance to identity and social class as 2nd. The affluent students regarded social class as significantly more important to identity than did the lower income students, were more aware of structural factors contributing to their success, and had higher occupational aspirations. Social class was an area of exploration for half the students, with higher levels of exploration shown by the lower income private school students than by the state college students. Lower income students developed an ideology that rationalized their social class position.

***********************************
Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17601077

Recap:
Individualism is a mental dysfunction that springs up out of felt poverty (dysfunctionally rationalizing one's poverty and perpetuating the evil social system of capitalism, which is nothing other than a clash of "Haves" vs. "Have Nots")?

Whatever!

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/19, 11:00am)

Post 33

Saturday, May 19, 2012 - 11:13am

This one takes the cake:

**************************************

Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012 Jun;38(6):808-20. Epub 2012 Mar 16.

Low-effort thought promotes political conservatism.

Eidelman S, Crandall CS, Goodman JA, Blanchar JC.

Source

1University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA.

Abstract

The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants' endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.
**************************************
Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22427384

Recap:
If you are a conservative thinker, it's because you don't think enough -- or you don't think deeply enough.

Say it with me, now: B-A-D ... S-C-I-E-N-C-E!

Ed

Post 34

Saturday, May 19, 2012 - 1:28pm

Bad Science is to the 'religion' of modern progressivism what the interpretation of scriptures is to traditional religion.

Post 35

Saturday, May 19, 2012 - 4:45pm

Great quote, Steve.

As Rand said in For The New Intellectual (in the chapter by the same name), the new (read: Kantian) pragmatism is nothing other than a collective subjectivism -- a social metaphysics -- where "knowledge is to be gained by means of public polls among special elites of 'competent investigators ...'."

This is no different from what you find whenever you look at organized religions.

Ed

Post 36

Saturday, May 19, 2012 - 6:49pm

Thanks, Ed.

Monday, May 21, 2012 - 1:54pm

RE: post 33

Could it be that some truths are self-evident and don't require deep thinking? Or that effortful thought sometimes equates to untruthful answers (i.e. the participant chooses the "socially acceptable" answer)?

Post 38

Monday, May 21, 2012 - 2:11pm

Weekly Standard to the rescue again.

Post 39

Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - 4:07pm