| | "What Is Human?"
....is the heading-name for this thread.
This is like Plato's old Socratic question-style of "What Is A Chair?" (with all of Socrate's discombobulating questions for others re definitions and usage of the term.) Properly, such a question should be re-formed as either "When *I* use the term, what do *I* really mean?" or, "When they say 'Grok,' just what do they seem to be referring to?" (or worse: "They're using my term pretty strangely; what do *they* mean?)--- Clearly, the term 'human' is not confusingly-unknown enough to fall under my 2nd example; ergo, properly it primarily falls under the 1st (though in this thread, the 3rd question becomes relevent too.)
As far as I'm concerned, the 1st question (my only concern here) is properly re-phrased as "What (for my knowledge-context) should I define as 'human'?" followed by "Isn't a dictionary def good enough, or need I go 'normative' on it?"
Re the term 'human,' I see, so far, no need to go 'normative' on the accepted def : 'rational animal.'
However, what Sarah (who started this thread) follows up with as presumably related questions boggles my mind, as to their 'relatedness.'
Sarah:
"...is it ok to eat a brain-dead person? Or grandma with alzheimer's?"
I don't recall ever having read an Objectivist position on ethics regarding the retarded, senile, etc. Anyone have anything for me?
~~ It dawns on me that you are asking, to put it more succinctly, not "What Is Human?" but, "Is it ethically allowable to kill (by 'eat,' I presume that you don't mean 'alive') those who have what's presently measurable as a less-than-a-'100'-IQ?" (due to brain-dysfunction from-whatever-cause, disease/accident/genetic.)
Or, more succinctly, "Are those with less than 100IQ properly called 'Human'?"
Correct? I'll presume so.
Even here, your question is still unclear (re 'retarded' especially) as to being measured by which tests given by which groups, since we all know that a 95 here is a 101 there and maybe a 115 elsewhere...don't we?
As well, we know that any IQ test today for most may show a declined-score re any given 30 yrs ago to the same person, regardless of brain-deficiency acquisition...right?
Finally, we agree that a test given to a "100IQ" 10-yr old clearly doesn't imply that they are as smart (trivia/'fact' knowledge), or even as intelligent (problem/puzzle-solving), nevermind other 'dimensions', as 1) they will (not might) be at 21yrs, or 2) your average presently-21-yr-old with "100IQ"...I hope. (Or, possibly, all 'children' get thrown in grandma's stew?)
~~ Well, true, O'ism never tackled these questions of yours on grandma or the 'retarded' (I further guess, hopefully correctly, that you mean ONLY the 'intellectually' retarded). But then, they never tackled any questions on those in a coma, even, nor those asleep, much less those who never had a civilized education. I would guess, probably, because ALL are presumed to still possess a consciousness, and, if considered as a physical 'human,' have the capability of rationality to-some-degree; ergo, they are still a 'rational animal.' --- An aside: 'retarded' refers to those who learn slower; not to those imagined as having stopped at some limited amount of knowledge forevermore. All of us on this forum are 'retarded' compared to Stephen Hawking, da Vinci, Rand, Jefferson, and a few others including whoever invented the wheel, not because we know less than them, but because they learned, hence saw things, faster than we (hence, they would be 'smarter' too, secondarily.) Too many ignoramusi who know nothing (and care to learn as much) about mental development throw around the term 'retarded' as meaning nothing more than "Those who ain't as smart as *me.*" Now, I'm sure that you're not one of those, but watch out for others responding who show that that's their interpretation. They're advertising that they are thereby choosing to fit into their self-limited-idea of 'retarded.' Anyhoo...
Those with Alzheimers are those with a consciousness ('thing/attribute'/whatever-in-this-context) and still capable of rationality, even when, sometimes, not up to the degree of what one is aware that they used to be.
Those with an 'IQ' of 99.999....or less, see above.
Those asleep, or in a coma (not to be confused with 'brain-dead') possess a consciousness, though they're not momentarily in the state where its operating; hence, see above.
Those who are unequivocably 'brain-dead,' (not 'more-or-less')...are, consciousness-wise...D-E-A-D; any possible-futuristic stimulation of brain-stem cells to grow new/more neurons at best would be creating a brain for a new person, not rehabilitating the old one who's gone. --- Some poster referred to being 'almost brain-dead'; this reminds me of The Princess Bride where someone agrees with another that a 3rd is dead, "...but not COMPLETELY dead!" Let's keep our terms straight, ok? Brain-dead is brain-dead; add 'almost' and we're not talking the same thing anymore.
~~A word (ok: a few) on how *I* use, and see as meant, the term 'rationality'--- if Rand, accepting Aristotle's definition of 'rational animal,' really meant 'ratiocinating animal,' she would have specified such, somewhere. Ergo, I see her meaning of 'rational' as including (though not necessarily implying; that's for Piaget) the idea that children are 'rational,' (I daresay infants e-v-e-n...'to a degree/point'). They are merely not 'conceptually-rational,' that is, up to using syllogisms or if-then conjunction-logic (well, other than prodigies.) Methinks that too many people, including self-styled "O'ists", are myopic on this point.
For an understanding of pre-conceptual 'rationality' (as contrasted with ratiocination), see Jean Piaget's longtitudinal studies (pb books:check Google) re the development in young children of the concepts re time/space/causality/'object-permanence'(aka 'identity')/etc...as well as 'personal-morality' and language-use including abstract 'indefinite' pronouns; he covers the childrens' evolution from pre-conceptualness to ratiocination. --- There is more to 'rationality' than Mr. Spock, Data, 7-of-9, Euclid, Dirac, or, generally, conceptually-controlled->language, math, deduction or induction (the latter 2 can be pre-conceptual 'logic' as well as post-). Indeed, the latter 4 require 'rationality' to already exist to-learn-to conceptualize them; else, they couldn't be l-e-a-r-n-e-d. --- I stress: ratiocination is not synonomous with rationality, present-day deduction-oriented math-logic professors'-myopia nwst.--- Addendum: Rand described/(defined?) volition as "...a function of rationality." I buy this, but, it's mucho food for thought, esp re what I've just explained. I'm not clear if an ET can be considered 'rational' without such implying some degree of volition, in which case any talk about 'rationality' AND 'volition,' as if each needs to be specified, might not be actually redundant. (P.S: computers and robots as-they-are [AI wet-daydreams nwst] operate 'logically,' but, not 'rationally'; I don't think AI'rs know the difference.)
~~Finally, the subject of 'cannibalism' per se:
I see nothing immoral (Soylent Green nwst) about it. Any murdering (a la Hannibal Lector) for it is what'd be immoral (eh, maybe depending on just who is 'murdered,' and why); but the act itself? No more than burying or cremating...or feeding to animals (including us). Such merely has to do with rituals re 'respect' for the memory of the deceased, and forms-of-'respect' are always personal. Indeed, re this latter...'respect' CAN include cannibalism in certain rare situations (you and your two 5yr-old twins survive in a small-plane crash in the mts and your spouse's last breath says "Don't let them starve waiting for rescue. You know what I mean! Promise me!") OTOH, I'd have no moral prob dis-respectfully eating Hitler's (or Idi Amin's) heart (stomach prob, yes, but...)
Well, that covers your 1st post.
~~Then you follow up with:
"....cognitive abilities...are...arbitrary." True, I condensed your multi-sentence response to another, but, this belief is as I understand your meaning.
If cognitive abilities are arbitrary, then, what could possibly be considered 'relevent' (ie: non-arbitrary) to any ethical-conundrum questions, or to ethics at all for that matter? Nothing, that I can see, which makes any questions on ethics pointless to begin with. If you don't accept Rand's delineation of connections/justifications re ethics (and inherent rights) to one's mind/consciousness/rationality/volitionalness, hence their connection to 'cognitive abilities,' (not to mention, more to the point, the contrary) then I am perplexed as to what you're looking for in THIS forum.
The responders to Sarah: (re varied related points brought up)
1) Mutating present species (such as Primates) to a recognizable level of 'rationality' equivalent to humans (a la Planet of the Apes) --- First, I'm aware of KoKo, Washoe, etc., as well as Lilly's studies of Dolphins, all of which have nothing to do with mutations, but show that intensive 'educating' of present apparently highly-'intelligent' (depending on one's definition of THAT term) animals have results that are chronically unclear re their ability to learn abstract concepts (shades of Rand's 'missing link' reference). That is, to learn without continual 'prodding' of use to any point of advancing beyond a minimal lowest apparent-to-some level. Second, any 'technological' mutating (genetic, cyborg, etc) is a whole different world, and then IF the mutated ones show a comparable ability to acquire/learn new (excuse me Sarah) 'cognitive' and, ergo, abstracting abilities...we're talking a whole new MUTATED species, non? Ed Thompson pointed out a relevent distinction to keep in mind here (though applicable elsewhere): 'sentient' vs.'sapient.' In short, at this point, "No more 'Mr. Nice Chimp'" (I guess we'd call them The Anthropoid 'X-Men'.) And, they will not be on the same par as those not-so-'mutated.' Indeed, such a difference may be equivalent (NOT "identical") to what I regard as the difference between a human fetus and a human baby. Ah-h, next point...
2) Human Fetus and Human Baby. --- Which one has what *you* are willing to call a 'consciousness'? I'll accept that it's a 'grey-area' (insufficient data=unknown) re a tri-mester fetus possessing a consciousness, but not to the point of legally-penalizing a gestator beyond 'forced' birth. Strictly speaking, I'm against that as well, but can understand 'force' ONLY to that point. More is needed to biologically define how to recognize the actual possession of a consciousness. But I stress here and now: if it's got a human brain, AND it has a consciousness, it is a 'rational,' (as I've explained by *my* argument/meaning of 'rational' above) one.
3) Should we be talking 'human' or mere 'person'? --- such would help prepare us for the 1st "I, Robot" that gets (supposedly) created, or the 1st ET we meet, but, at this time of our history where both seem to be in the far future, I see no difference in using either questioned term. So far, 'human'='person.' The prob is clarity in Identification...beyond the mere physical.
4) REFRAIN:::Grandma's Brain-Dead & the Zombie-Ghoul Body-Eaters --- If one really feels a preference for this diet (which we won't see on the Food Channel, I'm sure, Hannibal and his fava-beans nwst), as far as I'm concerned the eater and the eatee both have the same named prob...except one of them watched too many of those movies, thus making...it...that way. Otherwise, I see no immorality; a lotta grossness (especially if uncooked), yes, but no more immoral than one's eating a desert-snake alive after one's crawled for 4 days with no food. There IS however, the idea of 'respect,' which may, or may not, be deservedly-appropriate towards the eaten. This should cover Terri Schiavo...and, contrarily, a lot of politicians. P.S: Terri had no brain left. See "2)" above.
5) Cannibal-gene --- Too bad we don't have genes for avoiding other probs, like...getting sucked into pointless forum-debates. Someone commented that if the world goes 'cannibal' Body-Builders'd be the 1st to go. Uh-h-h, nope; they're the high-protein oriented ones. They'd be the LAST to go, and the 1st to start lurching...and munching (Maybe I will get that Bow-Flex I been thinkin' about.)
~~~Finally, my own question re this whole subject, "What is 'human,'" and "Why not be a cannibal?" Indeed, my question raises the very idea of "Would cannibalism include...THIS?"
Recently a movie came out called The Island; haven't seen it, but, understand it's about wealthy people (who else would be 'evil,' huh?) who pay for an island-proprietor to keep a clone of the payer there for, oh, any medical emergencies. Prob is, the clones (thinking they're living in some benevolent society) are all...undistinguishable by any measurement...from your usual anonymous stranger: physically and mentally 'human.' They're picked to be killed and used for the payer's medical use. OK, I got my answers for such. However, way-ahead-of-its-time, in 1971, a made-for-tv movie (w/Leslie Nielson) was called The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler and is similar to the above movie except that the 'clones' have no functioning brain. They walk around as if lobotomized. True, those poor unfortunates actually born with only a brain-stem do die soon after birth, but...the idea of purposefully keeping such...
MY Question: Would using such 'cloned,' non-brain, mere physical-bodies (whether kept in refrigerated stasis or whatever) for eating, be cannibalistic in an immoral way? If so, would keeping them even for medical emergencies be immoral? I stress, I'm asking about 'immoral' from the context of O'ist ethics...not any and all possible other ones.
Hope I've given some food for thought (and, maybe an 'answer' or two...to some.)
LLAP
J-D
(Edited by John Dailey on 8/20, 10:23pm)
(Edited by John Dailey on 8/20, 11:30pm)
(Edited by John Dailey on 8/20, 11:31pm)
(Edited by John Dailey on 8/21, 12:27pm)
|
|
