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 -
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.
Why not kill a sleeping human? Generally for all the same reasons that those around them want them to exist when they're awake. The world would be lessened by the world's own metrics, and the survivors would evolve to stop each other from killing sleeping humans. The policy of killing sleeping humans is structurally unstable in a way that Kant would shake his finger at, and the opportunity cost of stabbing them vs waking them up is large and immediate.
It's all very contingent upon how reality actually works mind you. If we could kill and re-spawn a human with little cost like in a video game- then the conditions would be different. The consequences are much lesser, therefore a social policy that encourages this behavior is more stable. We are actually seeing the beginnings of such a world coming out of character AI. People that can fork themselves need place much less meaning on death. Dead people are effectively still alive and fictional people are effectively real if you really can just spin them up and talk to them at any time.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
I don't think I misunderstand forms.
The central cases of formal causes are, geometric proofs right? I'm saying that since 134981765480 and 134981765481 are mathematically distinct, a rudder made out 134981765480 atoms is formally distinct from a rudder made out of 134981765481 atoms. If you abstract and zoom in just a little, everything can be framed as a form. Material differences become differences in electron shells with formal electrodynamic implications.
Any 'human truth' that disregards this difference is really just a 'human heuristic' that evolved for a reason.
is "I care about this change because it's formally different" the real, base reason for any belief? Why is "this" formal shift one we care about and not the 134981765480 atoms to 134981765481 atoms formal shift. This isn't a trick question. In the case of rudders it's clear that these changes in form don't change the ability to steer. It's clear that formal changes that affect the implications relating to crossing the ocean on this vessel, are the aspects of form we care about, and are the aspects of form we simplify our description of these objects to. For Zygotes I expect there is also a real and valid answer. I would just like to find that answer. Final causes seem more suited to give me the sort of answer that I'm expecting than formal causes.
Nothing is stagnant, microforms are always changing. Not all microformal changes matter, many get glossed over in our language on purpose. I can see why this formal shift is crucial to the reproductive cycle such that it merits it's own name. 'Conception' is a perfectly cromulent name. But this isn't an explaination of why this formal shift is more sacred than the formal shift from other structures to sperm or the formal shift that produces eggs or the formal shifts in the 'distance from sperm to egg geometric relation'.
You don't need to justify anything to me. You can just value what you value. But I think these values are historically subsequent to zygotes being an investment. As zygotes become less of an investment and more copyable I suspect ethics will evolve to value them less.
I don't think I agree with that. They have different materials. I would say they both share the form of a rudder. The material is not the form. Maybe this image helps clarify?
Well, we are talking about human morality here, and why a human understands one situation to be moral and another not to be moral.
Maybe try to apply it to something else, like the difference between a bullet in the chamber and a bullet two inches from your brain. It's like you're saying, "both situations are different forms of space-time, so why would one have moral significance from another?" But that would be generalizing out past the point of morality. Morality lies in the interplay between ideas and substances, not on the level of string vibrations where all is equal.
If you look at the situation rightly, you would recognize that a bullet heading towards your brain has a significance that a bullet in a chamber does not. And likewise, if you look at the difference between gametes and zygotes, you will see the difference of moral significance.
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