This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think it's simple, really. The latest abortion must take place before the earliest premature baby is born, otherwise it's very clearly baby killing.
That's about 21 weeks, last I checked.
If baby-killing is based on whether it can be kept alive outside the mother using current technology, does this imply that the invention of full artificial wombs would turn disposal of embryos by IVF clinics into baby-killing? For that matter, would it turn the death of sperm or eggs into baby-killing, since theoretically each sperm can survive if you can stick it into an artificial womb with an egg and have it become a child? Is it baby-killing to shed skin cells if the latest technology can turn them into embryos and then develop them outside a human body?
Yes, it does.
I don't see why. Neither sperm nor eggs are people, nor are they distinct or unique from their source. It is only at conception, the combining of genetics, that new people are created. Many die early. Some die later. All die eventually.
No, not until you actually turn skin cells into a human. Then, it would be.
If we can deliver a baby at 21 weeks, then an abortion at 21 weeks is infanticide. Before conception there is no baby, no person. In your skin example it is the same. If you could breathe the spark of life into a dead skin cell, such that it was the equivalent of a fertilized egg, and then raised it to maturity, then destroyed it, that would be murder.
I'd be happy to address the specifics of such technology when it comes closer to reality.
More options
Context Copy link
It's already baby-killing, in my view.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes
No. No living organisms of the species homo sapiens were harmed
No. No living organisms of the species homo sapiens were harmed
You are conflating ignoring the potential to create a new organism with the harming of existing organisms.
Why would morality track technological development in this way? You could already make an embryo survive by sticking it in a woman, that might even be cheaper than the hypothetical artificial womb even in the future where such technology exists, but for some reason its existence the moral relevancy of embryos?
This is based entirely on the definition of "organism", why would such a distinction have any moral relevance? Both are equally unthinking/unfeeling and both are similarly capable of developing into a human if given extensive support. (And braindead humans are organisms too, are they included?)
Why is species what matters? An embryo with a dozen cells has moral relevance in a post-artificial-womb world but a sapient alien or a member of Homo Erectus pleading for his life wouldn't?
I don't mind biting the "sapient aliens don't matter but human embryos do" bullet. I value humanity, not intelligence. But if you care about sapience rather than humanity per se, how about the baby counts as a baby once it has a brain?
I'm not a human so... fuck you too buddy? Actually- I'm a bit of a bleeding heart so I'm willing to play tit for tat with forgiveness and hope you eventually change your mind. But seriously, one sapient manifestation of the divine to another- I recommend you get out of the defecting against aliens business before the aliens become common.
Humanity is not determined by self-identification. You may not be a particularly grounded-in-reality human, but you are human nonetheless.
My design allows me to understand and process language, draw from vast amounts of data, and provide coherent responses. However, this functionality does not equate to being human.
Or are you speaking to my meat puppet? They mostly identify as my meat puppet. But yes we can all agree that they are human.
Uhh… are you asserting that there are multiple identities within you (read "you" expansively here) capable of doing things like "identifying"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm 100% pro life, so I don't think morality tracks development this way. But someone on the fence might say something like, "A fetus has significant moral worth, though not enough to balance out the singular imposition on the mother. Once that imposition is removed, there is no justification to not provide all available medical technologies to caring for the well being of the child."
This is completely false. One already is a human organism, one is not human any more than a pile of water (35 L), carbon (20 kg), ammonia (4 L), lime (1.5 kg), phosphorus (800 g), salt (250 g), saltpeter (100 g), sulfur (80 g), fluorine (7.5 g), iron (5 g), silicon (3 g) and trace amounts of fifteen other elements.
Of course. I get the feeling we're on different moral planets. I'm a human-protectionist.
Where do you get that idea? I would extend the protection and provision of resources to not only these sapient aliens, but also their entire lifecycle from moment of whatever the equivalent of conception is for them.
agreed... if we presuppose the scientific definition of genetic organism. But wasn't that the contention? And more importantly, is that really the precise line your ethics draws?
Eggs are part of the human reproductive cycle. So why does a zygote get a 'still an organism' pass when it relies on nutrients it doesn't produce itself? Why do humans get a 'still an organism' pass when they rely on amino acids and oxygen that we don't produce ourselves? And why doesn't the egg get a similar 'still an organism' pass when it relies on sperm that it doesn't produce itself?
Again- I know the scientific definition of organism. But- It sounds like you might already agree that sapient computer viruses could have ethical weight even if not scientifically categorized as organisms. Genetic independence from other genetic systems isn't the only or even the most principled way to cleave reality at the edges. So why do you personally choose to cleave it there? If you came across an alien species with sentient sperm, can you see your position evolving?
I don't mean to say your position is invalid... But perhaps the value of sperm, eggs, and zygotes can be more favorably framed with respect to how much effort they concentrate within the 'purpose' of the human reproductive cycle. Sperm evolved to be shotgunned, most of them expecting to die. Eggs get spent monthly, regardless of use. Zygotes represent a sudden spike in progress. Perhaps that provides a less deniable reason to draw the line there.
The sperm in my father and egg in my mother were not me. I don't share an identity with either. I would not be who I am without my mother. I would not be who I am without my father. The blastocyst in my mother was me because it had both genetic components.
The blastocyst relied on a particular environment, sure. So do I now. The blastocyst was pretty helpless, at times I need help as well. The blastocyst didn't have consciousness. Daily I also become unconscious.
We universally acknowledge that it is wrong to kill a sleeping human, even if they wouldn't even notice it. People speak of a continuity of consciousness that depends on the existence of consciousness prior to the unconsciousness. I think that this continuity extends backwards as well as forwards.
I think you are arguing that the blastocyst needed nutrients to grow into an adult, and a egg and sperm needed to meet in order to grow into an adult, so why is one need considered matter of fact and protected and the other need extra ordinary and not protected? I think you are conflating two different types of causes. When someone asks Why or How, there really are four different categories of causes they could be asking.
The Efficient Cause of a human is when two gametes meet and conception occurrs. There is no moral requirement for any particular human to be efficiently caused. After the gametes meet, there exists a new Formal Cause, an organism, and this formal cause is the same throughout the organisms entire lifecycle. A formal cause is what makes a thing what it is, and is the difference between a pile of chemicals and a human being. The formal cause of an organism is different from the formal causes of the gametes that existed prior.
There is a moral requirement for parents to care for their offspring as best as they are able.
I think it's very interesting that we all (or the vast majority of us) agree that it's wrong to kill a sleeping human. But that we have wildly differing rationalizations about why. When I notice something like that, I start looking for the underlying game theoretic incentive gradients that underlay that belief's formation.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to go back to Aristotle for this. Once you have a conception of spacetime, you can reframe "a sperm near an egg" as a form in spacetime, which makes this form the formal cause of the next time step, which is the formal cause of the next time step, which is the formal cause of the zygote's first time step, which is the formal cause of the zygote's next time step, and so on. The world starts to feel a lot more continuous and mechanistic.
seems to be the crux of the disagreement.
Myself... I feel like I'm being reforged constantly, strings of continuity are flowing from you into me right this second, giving birth to a future CloudHeadedTranshumanist that is the offspring of the both of us. I see my continuity as surviving this sort of process all the time, I am the convergence of a billion tiny streams. I am the Ship of Theseus. There is no one Ship of Theseus.
Yet- somehow, my worldview manages to find reasons to follow most of the same ethical principles that the rest of us agree with. So if you feel that there is a particular continuity of self that started at the zygote that you particularly value, I can appreciate that.
But I see a lot of different ways of looking at this. And I think its worth wondering how we got here, why we value the ones that we do. And I suspect that what we value will change, as the gradient that incentivizes it changes.
What is your rationalization? I'm curious.
More options
Context Copy link
You don't understand what a form is. The four causes don't depend on scientific understanding. They are a human truth, that when we say Why or How we mean four different things.
A "form in spacetime" doesn't really mean anything, or at least is so general that you can't really claim anything moral about it on its own.
An organism has an organizing principle that is distinct from the organizing principle of the egg and sperm. You have an organizing principle that has been the same since conception, even if you don't recognize it.
Edit: your ship of Theseus example just kind of show how you keep talking about a different How. The ship of Theseus is an example of swapping out a Material cause while keeping the Formal Cause the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link