RoR: Forum

"A fetus is not a human being, only a potential human being."

If that is a true and accurate statement, then how is it that a newborn suddenly acquires this new status? How is it that a fetus that is decanted one way is more of a human being than one that is outed via some other method? If the aborted fetus is still alive, then is it a human being?

If not, then the main difference appears to be in the intent of the mother. If she goes to a doctor and has the fetus sucked out in pieces one week, then she's just getting rid of a nuissance. If she delivers the baby the next week, and dumps it in the trash, that's murder?
Does this make any sense?

I agree with Dean that it is no business of the state, and also that a newborn has less of the qualities that make us value other human beings than a grown cat, even though we may be genetically programmed to feel otherwise.

I would go further to say that in general adults are of much more value than children, especially newborn. An average adult human being in our culture has had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in him or her and will yield much more as a return on investment. On the other hand, an average newborn has had the equivalent of only a few thousand or tens of thousands invested in him or her. To lose the adult is to lose perhaps half a million dollars worth of value. To lose the newborn, a few thousands.

Since I don't believe in crimnal law in general, there's no special status for killing of newborn, or for killing of adult cats, either, although that is probably worse in many cases.

All that said, it is pure idiocy for any woman to dump a baby in the trash, as there are plenty of people eagerly waiting to take that baby, even if it is deformed or needs special medical care. However, perhaps this woman was an idiot, and/or mentally ill. Just because she made such a stupid choice, perhaps out of embarrassment, or fear of consequences from family, etc., is not reason for anyone else, state or otherwise to step in and make things even worse.

We don't need to set examples by crucifying people for making stupid decisions. Generally the stupid decision is enough - if anything is. It would be nice if we had a better system of alerting and educating people to make good choices.

If our system of dealing with parental rights were a bit more rational, allowing parents to sell their rights in the market, for example, then you would be amazed to hear that some woman had trashed a baby, as that would be the equivalent in today's baby market of throwing away perhaps $20 or $30 thousand. Clearly there is a better chance for the baby's survival when the mother will be paid handsomely for delivering it safe and sound to a happy set of would be parents than for delivering it for free to some hospital or fire station.

Post 101

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 7:42pm

Teresa,

First, when a woman makes reference to my awesome abilities I get dizzy. So right from the start, you�re not playing fair. You�re just not. ; >

Dean is a big boy. He can handle Joe�s gentle persuasion and he can certainly handle another�s view that he is not just mistaken but spewing views that are disgusting. I have a conscience and a voice, so when I hear support given to a mother who tosses hoops with her newborn, I feel the urge to say something.

And Dean can dish it out, too. I recall an episode when Neil Parille suggested that it might be in our self-interest to support the poorest, at least in the minimum, to prevent rioting. Dean responded by calling Neil the lowest scum of the earth. He got quit whipped up about it, accusing Neil of wanting to enslave him, and calling Neil �a worthless piece of shit,� as I recall it.

I am not positively impressed by someone who unleashes against an imagined desire to enslave him, yet is unaffected by murder on the grounds that, �I don't value such a human child any more than another's unwanted cat or dog.�

Maybe Dean will turn out all right. For now I will go with �if it looks like a duck.� I�ve seen a few of the unenlightened me, me, me-types before and obsessions over imagined injustices to them conjoined with indifference to injustices to others has been one of the telling signs. It�s an induction thing.

Post 102

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 3:51am

All that said, it is pure idiocy for any woman to dump a baby in the trash, as there are plenty of people eagerly waiting to take that baby, even if it is deformed or needs special medical care.

That is quite simply NOT true - there are LOADS of infants born who are NOT desired, and only a cry of 'duty' induces others to take up 'caring' for them - and duty is NOT 'eagerly waiting'.... further, those who ARE waiting are not doing so because of lack of infants, but because of government interference..... moreso, the reality is that in foster care, a goodly number are 'in it for the money' and not because they, too, are 'eagerly waiting to take the baby'.....

Post 103

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 8:49am

Cubical Morality

Joe: "I once heard a question that went something like: "Is it better to be right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons?". In other words, is it better to arrive at a false conclusion through a rational approach that you made a mistake in applying, or be right through the product of an irrational approach. I think the first will at least have the opportunity to correct his views."

Of course both are wrong but it is clear that Joe�s sympathies lie with the rationalistic approach and it�s clear that he applauds Dean's being "...driven by trying to apply these ideas consistently no matter where it takes him."

An interesting detail about that rationalistic approach is that it has led to the most evil atrocities in human history. That is why objectivity is important in dealing with ethical issues�if devote rationalists go on unchecked they can tend to wipe out populations.

I think the good people here know that theory is great and all but that is not the whole story of objectivity. You�ve got to look at the real world to get facts before you develop theories about it; form the theory, then double check against reality at every stage of the game; fine tune the theory and then see if it leads to positive outcomes. If it doesn�t you are a fool. If it leads to bad outcomes (endangerment of human life), there is a good chance that you are evil scum.

A very small percentage of thinking and effort makes up theories, the vast majority of the method is proving it against reality.

Popping off normative abstractions about the negligibility of new human life, without method, without life experience, without case studies, without projecting possible negative outcomes is grotesquely incompetent. Again, I question what is the motive to do such a thing?

(Edited by Guy Stanton on 4/12, 8:50am)

Post 104

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 12:43pm

Mr. Stanton,
"Rational" and "rationalistic" don't mean the same thing; at least, not on this forum.

Post 105

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 1:42pm

Dr. Fletcher wrote: ""Rational" and "rationalistic" don't mean the same thing; at least, not on this forum."

Does that hold true for "argument" and "argumentative" as well?

(Edited by Guy Stanton on 4/12, 1:47pm)

Post 106

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 2:10pm

Guy,

I think most of the evil atrocities in human history have been due to to a lack of thinking, and not too much thinking. Since my earlier post (which you quoted from) makes exactly that point, I'm not sure who you're arguing against. As it is, it sounds a lot like you're claiming we shouldn't think for ourselves because we might end up with wrong answers (as if conforming to society's conventions somehow avoids that).

And you dismiss this active process of reasoning as "rationalistic". It's fine to argue that someone has misapplied reason, but your point seems to be that we shouldn't trust reason because when people misapply it, it can lead to disaster.

I think it's simple. Those who are dedicated to the use of reason may make mistakes, but they will continue to integrate their thoughts better, look at empirical data, and come to a better conclusion. The position you keep defending is the non-thinking approach, where you are careful not to trust your reasoning mind, and instead "safely" go with "common sense".

Post 107

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 3:06pm

I don't think there is anything in Guy's post that remotely suggest a dismissal of the "active process of reasoning". Instead, he emphasizes that "you've got to look at the real world to get facts before you develop theories about it". Among the many pitfalls in people's arguments, what I've seen most often is a lack of understanding of reality and of the conditions under which a theory is valid. And of course, context dropping. Whenever your reason leads you to a wrong end, do what Rand said, "check your premises". In other words, go back to the real world and look harder at all facts.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/12, 3:07pm)

Post 108

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 4:52pm

There seem to be some problems in this thread at this point.

1) Guy made an error in the use of the words rational and rationalistic. Most of us here know that being rational is a highly valued virtue and a necessary practice. It includes processes like looking at the real world, double checking, making and validating theories, and using experience. Unlike what Guy says, being rational and being objective are never in conflict. And "rationalistic" is most often used as like "rationalizing" - a form of error where bogus 'reasons' are presented.

2) Guy linked rationalistic to Joseph and to evil atrocities. Now, no matter what meaning he hooks to "rationistic" those aren't appropriate links. There is no evidence presented that says Joseph should suffer either of those linkages. I've never seen Joe advocating anything that would remotely be considered an evil atrocity and I have never seen Joe as rationalistic.

And Hong seems to miss that this was an inappropriate thing for Guy to say. Guy should have tried to make a case for where a theory was failing to connect to reality and how that happened. "So and so said x. That theory is out of touch with reality because of y." He didn't do that. He just put it up as something that can result in evil atrocities and then he links all that undifferentiated unspecific mess to Joseph.

Post 109

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 9:04pm

Steve,
It appears that you have drawn a line in the sand, and I doubt that there is anything I can say that will change your position. But, I will point out in the manner that you are incorrect. And I will do that only once.

You wrote: "Guy should have tried to make a case for where a theory was failing to connect to reality and how that happened. "So and so said x. That theory is out of touch with reality because of y." He didn't do that."

In fact I did exactly that in post#103, uncannily, almost identical to your formula.

"So and so said x."
Joe wrote: "...is it better to arrive at a false conclusion through a rational approach that you made a mistake in applying, or be right through the product of an irrational approach. I think the first will at least have the opportunity to correct his views."

And,

Joe supports Dean's being "...driven by trying to apply these ideas consistently no matter where it takes him."

"That theory is out of touch with reality because of y."
These were Joe�s justifications for Dean�s stance that new human life is negligible. Dean�s reasons for his position were based on unwantedness, unproductiveness. In principal, the elimination of human life forms for their lack of production or desirability is an extremely frightening proposal. I think justifying my concern, and, apparently several other people here as well.

Both Joe�s statements are rationalistic, both discount outcomes in reality. I use this meaning for rationalistic: the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.

I have in fact done my "x,y, and z�s"

In response to my post Joe wrote: "...it sounds a lot like you're claiming we shouldn't think for ourselves...your point seems to be that we shouldn't trust reason...you keep defending is the non-thinking approach..."

Joe doesn�t quote me; and quoting people really does help. For example, I understand he is making a summary and conclusion but I don�t know what he based those on. I don�t think that is reasonable. :)

(Edited by Guy Stanton on 4/13, 5:43am)

Post 110

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 7:33am

Guy,
First, let me say that I called you Mr. Stanton because I didn't want to presume. You have never signed any of your posts, so I had no idea how you wished to be referred to. Somehow, I don't think your reference to me as Dr. Fletcher (changed from Mr. Fletcher) was in the same spirit. BTW, I have no idea what the intent of your post #105 was.
As to your last post, I don't think you have responded adequately to Steve's remarks. He said:

Guy should have tried to make a case for where a theory was failing to connect to reality and how that happened.

You still haven't done that. Joe said:

I once heard a question that went something like: "Is it better to be right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons?". In other words, is it better to arrive at a false conclusion through a rational approach that you made a mistake in applying, or be right through the product of an irrational approach. I think the first will at least have the opportunity to correct his views. The latter will apply his faulty methodology throughout the rest of his life.

You said:

Both Joe�s statements are rationalistic, both discount outcomes in reality. I use this meaning for rationalistic: the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.

You haven't made a case at all. All you've done is repeat what you said before. How is Joe's statement (the one I quoted above) rationalistic? Do you think it's better to get the right answer for the wrong reason? Why is it rationalistic to say that it is better to use a rational approach (which, in Objectivism, includes considering "outcomes in reality") and make a mistake than to use an irrational approach and somehow get the right answer?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 111

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 9:31am

Glen,

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

It was simple, I changed your prefix after reading your profile that you were a Ph.D., it�s a simple mark of respect.

" BTW, I have no idea what the intent of your post #105 was."

You probably haven�t read Wilde.

You snidely (:)), reminded me of the difference between "rational" and "rationalistic", but I am well aware of the difference and I had used "rationalistic" exactly as I intended to. So I answered you in kind, that you had not made an "argument" you were merely being "argumentative". It�s a slightly complicated play on words and context.

"As to your last post, I don't think you have responded adequately to Steve's remarks."

Adequate or not, that was not the point I was making. I was demonstrating that I was "playing fair", I sited quotes by Joe that I disagreed with, I gave my reasons why, and why the issue was important. Steve contradicted those facts, told me that I was wrong, and left it that, without presenting an argument. Sloppy methodology.

But, I think your query is more concerned with content. "Do you think it's better to get the right answer for the wrong reason?"

Of course not. But neither in am I a puppet of Joe�s false alternatives. It was a set up. Both approaches that Joe offered are wrong, it was not a rational query. Joe wanted us to think that Dean was less wrong then Hong, Teresa, Jon, and Erica. That somehow Dean had the right objective approach�that is total B.S.

"... in Objectivism, includes considering "outcomes in reality..."

That is precisely what I was arguing for and found missing in Joe�s arguments in support Dean.

"Why is it rationalistic to say that it is better to use a rational approach...and make a mistake than to use an irrational approach and somehow get the right answer?"

As noted above, the question was faulty to start with, the alternatives are both wrong. But, one them is more dangerous.

A solid approach was the one echoed by Hong: "Whenever your reason leads you to a wrong end, do what Rand said, "check your premises".
For people who pontificate in logic and ethical conclusions, without quotes, facts, care for the reality of the situation indeed find it upsetting to their neat structure to "go back to the real world and look harder at all the facts."

Guy

(Edited by Guy Stanton on 4/13, 10:35am)

Post 112

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 11:33am

Hong said in post #107 (and Guy repeated in post #111):

Whenever your reason leads you to a wrong end, do what Rand said, "check your premises". In other words, go back to the real world and look harder at all facts.

Typically when Rand invoked "check your premises", it was in situations where the conclusion was a contradiction. For example, here are two quotes fro AS:

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

and

Check your premises, Dagny. Contradictions don't exist.

I don't think she intended it to be applied in cases where you just don't like the conclusion.

But let's accept this sage advice. My question is: what criteria do you use to determine when you have reached "a wrong end"? I thought that was the main argument on this thread: trying to come up with arguments for why Dean's conclusion is a "wrong end".

As for the advice to "go back to the real world and look harder at all the facts.", I'm curious what aspect of the real world would help us to sort out whether rights are applicable to newborns and what those rights should be. What facts should someone look harder at to determine whether they should extend the negative rights adults have to positive rights for the child?
Joe said in post #62:

When we talk about adults having rights, it means they should be left alone. It's the idea of "negative" rights. But when a child's rights are discussed, suddenly the opposite is assumed. The child suddenly seems to have positive rights. So their "right to life" is a right to healthy food, safe environment, good education, etc. It's not hard to see why an Objectivist looking to integrate this idea with the rest of the philosophy might find it difficult. If an adult is starving, we have no obligation to feed it. Similarly if there is a starving child in Africa, we also have no obligation to feed it. If they die by omission, it's not murder. So why does a baby dying in front of us suddenly have these positive rights? Certainly if you're going to discuss rights or obligations, you have to do a lot better than simply making assertions. [Emphasis added.]

So far I haven't seen anyone do this successfully.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 113

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 11:45am

> My question is: what criteria do you use to determine when you have reached "a wrong end"?

Glenn,
As a scientist I assume that you'd agree that the best way to prove something wrong is to find contradictions, isn't it?

Post 114

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 12:08pm

     Interesting that a thread which DMG started, and then left a last post at #47 ('deleted' yet!), continues on with everyone else arguing with mostly only each other up to post 112! That's a lotta arguing amongst so many, caused by one who dropped out of the whole discussion about his perplexity concerning 'punishment' of someone who enjoys gestating then dropping the gestated into a garbage-truck's pickup spot.

     Sounds like the old Transactional Analysis 'Game' (as in GAMES PEOPLE PLAY) called "Hey! Let's You and Him Fight!"

LLAP
J:D

Post 115

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 12:08pm

Glen,

If you want to join us, then get involved. You cannot simply sit on the outside saying I/we, whoever didn�t convince you.

So here is the question. Is new human life negligible?

Once you have made a stance, and given somekind of reason for it, then we can discuss further.

P.S. I don�t expect you to come up with a revolutionary concept of rights to do this.

Post 116

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 12:13pm

Hong,
I agree that

the best way to prove something wrong is to find contradictions.

But, what is the contradiction in the subject of this thread? The only contradiction I see so far is that between the Objectivist principle of negative rights and the suggestion that children have positive rights. And I consider the former to be solidly based in reality.

Post 117

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 12:23pm

Guy,
You show me yours and I'll show you mine. So far you have not said anything that even suggests a position on this issue in this thread. If you ever do, with appropriate arguments in support of it, I will address it. Then again, maybe I won't join you.
Glenn

Post 118

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 12:23pm

> But, what is the contradiction in the subject of this thread?

What about "post birth" and "abortion"? And all that are implied by them. :-)

And I have to admit that I never had a good grasp of those "positive" or "negative" rights stuff. I don't understand this language and can not talk it.

PS. If my guess of what "children's positive rights" are what they are, no I never suggested it. Our Chinese always hold that grown children are in debt to their parents and are obliged to take care of their elderly parents. Family members should always be able to depend on each other. That's how I was raised and how my family are. There's no contradictions here.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/13, 12:38pm)

Post 119

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 12:43pm