> force a woman to bear and raise a child > she never wanted
Ah, but that's just the rub. Once the child is there, it's not our place to end that life. If the child grows up and is miserable, that'd be a bummer... but to end a life because it might be a sad one, yikes.
Along the same lines, I used to be a big capital punishment fan, but now I'm not. I'm not sure if it's our responsibility to end a life that God may well use to honor Him in some way we haven't foreseen.
> all sorts of people that would never > adopt a baby
I hear tell that there are long lines of folks waiting to adopt. But I have no figures to back that up, so, word.
> The practical choice is between the > two I presented.
Well.... another possibility is that the child, albeit initially unwanted, will grow up and be a happy fellow. Or perhaps the mom, upon seeing the sweet little tyke, will decide that she wants him after all.
I wonder if middle eastern countries have a policy about this? I mean, Islam teaches that dying while killing an infidel gets you to Janaah, so... hm. Dunno.
I spent 5 years in the Coast Guard and was told that the days of "you have to go out but you don't have to come back" are over. Now "you have to go out _and_ you have to come back!"
> 2) Rewrite morality -- Maybe this is normally > wrong, but I would have starved otherwise, > so it can't be wrong, because morality can't > tell me I have to die.
I think we may be in violent agreement here. You're saying the above constitutes "totally rewriting morality", I'm saying the above constitutes determining which is the greater moral good.
If he had grabbed a fellow soldier and hurled him on the grenade, I bet he'd be court martialed for murder. And his plea that "by sacrificing this one fellow, I saved the lives of the rest of the squad" would not get him very far.
> anything where you trample on someone to > get an advantage
Hm. Folks who steal food usually don't deny morality; instead they assert a greater moral good (their survival) over a lesser one (property ownership). This isn't rewriting morality, it's studying it.
Hm. But that's not _self_ preservation... that's more of a "preservation of mankind" sort of thing. If a fellow is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of mankind, that seems a bit different than being willing to sacrifice mankind for the good of himself.
> the suicide you're probably thinking of is > borne of despondance
Yup, right on.
> The law can say what it likes; if my choice > is life in jail or the death of my child, > most people will go for the former.
Right... yes. But I'm not sure how often that choice arises... I guess I'm not sure how that sentence supports "the need for survival rewriting things that get in its way".
> What happens?
To pose a related thought experiment, suppose a woman has a choice to abort a baby and knows that aborting the baby may result in medical benefits for someone else. Now she has even less of a reason to spare her child's life.
> Do you see why they're fighting the > development of cures so desperately?
Yes. They're fighting the use of embryonic stem cells because they believe humans are an end, not a mean to an end.
I'm not sure that I follow this analogy. I think you're saying that behavior which opposes our self-preservation instinct is a temporary anomaly. Is that right?
> Survival is _constantly_ rewriting morality
Did you mean "society is [...]"?
> Presumably, the morality police had their > rules "clarified".
Hm. I guess I'm not sure what morality is being rewritten in this case. I mean, suppose nothing happened to the "morality police". Would their actions still be wrong?
Yup, that makes sense. I think that I felt that the original poster was making a dichotomy of "things I am 100% sure of because they're verifiable through the scientific method" and "everything else is completely unknowable".
> you exist as a person and are not a 'bot
How do you feel about me exist as a person and are not a 'bot?
> George Washington existing is as likely > as Autism or Schitzophrenia existing.
Hm. I admire your consistency... but, whew, that's quite a statement. Wouldn't that lead towards denying the "certainty of existence" of anything outside your immediate sense experiences?
This reminds me of the bit in one of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, where the ruler of the universe postulates that rain makes things wet, but he's not sure about it. On the other hand, he does end up winning the debate with Zarniwoop, so, hey.
Hm. So you feel that the only truth is that which can be proved through the scientific method? Or am I misstating the argument? Doesn't that result in "truth" being restricted to Boyle's Law and such-like?
> you just have to look at the actions > of your parents
Right, you can find facts that tend to imply one thing or the other. But you can't do a scientific experiment that establishes a result in the same way that you could verify, say, "force=mass * acceleration".
> I have never seen a god nor has anyone > else I know
Hm. I've never seen George Washington and nor has anyone else I know. But I believe that he existed.
> "Fact" is the opposite of "Opinion", > not the opposite of "falsehood".
Hm. I _think_ that makes sense... but I kind of feel it's a bit slippery.
For example, someone might say "your assertion of your parents' love for you is an opinion, not a fact, and is therefore neither true nor false". But that's just a restatement of the original poster's premise that any non-empirically verifiable statement is not true. At least, I think it is...
> I would say that "love" is a hideously > defined word that has several unrelated > meanings, many of them hopelessly abstract, > and is unsuitable for statements of fact.
And I'd agree. But I'd also say that "statements of fact" are a subset of the concept of "truth".
> if something cannot be proved to exist, > we have to assume that it does not
This is an epistemological question; that is, what are the "ways of knowing" truth? I would suggest that empirical studies are one way of knowing, but not the only way.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, never mind, they've got a Referrer header checker that disables linking directly to the printable page. My apologies...
...is here.
Nice history lesson on EGCS. I wondered how that got sorted out...
> force a woman to bear and raise a child
> she never wanted
Ah, but that's just the rub. Once the child is there, it's not our place to end that life. If the child grows up and is miserable, that'd be a bummer... but to end a life because it might be a sad one, yikes.
Along the same lines, I used to be a big capital punishment fan, but now I'm not. I'm not sure if it's our responsibility to end a life that God may well use to honor Him in some way we haven't foreseen.
> all sorts of people that would never
> adopt a baby
I hear tell that there are long lines of folks waiting to adopt. But I have no figures to back that up, so, word.
> The practical choice is between the
> two I presented.
Well.... another possibility is that the child, albeit initially unwanted, will grow up and be a happy fellow. Or perhaps the mom, upon seeing the sweet little tyke, will decide that she wants him after all.
> in western militaries
I wonder if middle eastern countries have a policy about this? I mean, Islam teaches that dying while killing an infidel gets you to Janaah, so... hm. Dunno.
I spent 5 years in the Coast Guard and was told that the days of "you have to go out but you don't have to come back" are over. Now "you have to go out _and_ you have to come back!"
Hey, you're Dan Kaminsky! Nice article here.
> Yeast clearly aren't very smart.
Correct.
> Are human beings?
Some are smarter than others. But each person is created in the image of God and is worthy of respect.
> 2) Rewrite morality -- Maybe this is normally
> wrong, but I would have starved otherwise,
> so it can't be wrong, because morality can't
> tell me I have to die.
I think we may be in violent agreement here. You're saying the above constitutes "totally rewriting morality", I'm saying the above constitutes determining which is the greater moral good.
If he had grabbed a fellow soldier and hurled him on the grenade, I bet he'd be court martialed for murder. And his plea that "by sacrificing this one fellow, I saved the lives of the rest of the squad" would not get him very far.
> They're related
:-)
:-)
They're related, perhaps, but they frequently conflict.
> Mostly I'm making reference to the fact that
> survival is a shockingly potent trump card.
Hm. That's well said, and I can't think of any good rejoinders
> this gets resolved by taking the position
> that it's not a human yet.
True, although taking that position doesn't make it valid.
> You like Grandpa, don't you?
Curses - you've played the other trump card
> We know what they did was immoral _because_
> the girls didn't survive.
Hm. So, anything that causes death is immoral, is that right? Doesn't that deny the moral good of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade?
> Humans aren't rulled by instincts.
I agree.
> anything where you trample on someone to
> get an advantage
Hm. Folks who steal food usually don't deny morality; instead they assert a greater moral good (their survival) over a lesser one (property ownership). This isn't rewriting morality, it's studying it.
> The soldier who jumps on a live grenade
Hm. But that's not _self_ preservation... that's more of a "preservation of mankind" sort of thing. If a fellow is willing to sacrifice himself for the good of mankind, that seems a bit different than being willing to sacrifice mankind for the good of himself.
> the suicide you're probably thinking of is
> borne of despondance
Yup, right on.
> The law can say what it likes; if my choice
> is life in jail or the death of my child,
> most people will go for the former.
Right... yes. But I'm not sure how often that choice arises... I guess I'm not sure how that sentence supports "the need for survival rewriting things that get in its way".
> What happens?
To pose a related thought experiment, suppose a woman has a choice to abort a baby and knows that aborting the baby may result in medical benefits for someone else. Now she has even less of a reason to spare her child's life.
> Do you see why they're fighting the
> development of cures so desperately?
Yes. They're fighting the use of embryonic stem cells because they believe humans are an end, not a mean to an end.
Fortunately, he has a good chauffeur - a Russian fellow by the name of Pickup Andropov.
> That's like asking why the body gets cancer
I'm not sure that I follow this analogy. I think you're saying that behavior which opposes our self-preservation instinct is a temporary anomaly. Is that right?
> Survival is _constantly_ rewriting morality
Did you mean "society is [...]"?
> Presumably, the morality police had their
> rules "clarified".
Hm. I guess I'm not sure what morality is being rewritten in this case. I mean, suppose nothing happened to the "morality police". Would their actions still be wrong?
> Self-preservation is the strongest instinct
Then why do people commit suicide?
> morality will inexorably be rewritten to
> allow whatever is required to survive.
What evidence do you have to support this assertion?
> Dr. Chick N. Little
He's being sued by my law firm - Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe.
> You CAN, however, talk to someone
Right on; that's another method of discerning truth. The original poster had asserted that the scientific method was the _only_ way.
Yup, that makes sense. I think that I felt that the original poster was making a dichotomy of "things I am 100% sure of because they're verifiable through the scientific method" and "everything else is completely unknowable".
> you exist as a person and are not a 'bot
How do you feel about me exist as a person and are not a 'bot?
> George Washington existing is as likely
> as Autism or Schitzophrenia existing.
Hm. I admire your consistency... but, whew, that's quite a statement. Wouldn't that lead towards denying the "certainty of existence" of anything outside your immediate sense experiences?
This reminds me of the bit in one of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, where the ruler of the universe postulates that rain makes things wet, but he's not sure about it. On the other hand, he does end up winning the debate with Zarniwoop, so, hey.
> they're all unknown
Hm. What about historical facts? Are they unknown also? For example, do we "know" that George Washington existed?
> I actually agree with the original
Hm. So you feel that the only truth is that which can be proved through the scientific method? Or am I misstating the argument? Doesn't that result in "truth" being restricted to Boyle's Law and such-like?
> you just have to look at the actions
> of your parents
Right, you can find facts that tend to imply one thing or the other. But you can't do a scientific experiment that establishes a result in the same way that you could verify, say, "force=mass * acceleration".
> I have never seen a god nor has anyone
> else I know
Hm. I've never seen George Washington and nor has anyone else I know. But I believe that he existed.
> "Fact" is the opposite of "Opinion",
> not the opposite of "falsehood".
Hm. I _think_ that makes sense... but I kind of feel it's a bit slippery.
For example, someone might say "your assertion of your parents' love for you is an opinion, not a fact, and is therefore neither true nor false". But that's just a restatement of the original poster's premise that any non-empirically verifiable statement is not true. At least, I think it is...
> I would say that "love" is a hideously
> defined word that has several unrelated
> meanings, many of them hopelessly abstract,
> and is unsuitable for statements of fact.
And I'd agree. But I'd also say that "statements of fact" are a subset of the concept of "truth".
> there is no way to detect love through
> objective measurement
Right on. This suggests that there are ways of evaluating, say, Boyle's Law, and different ways of evaluating one's love for a friend.
> if something cannot be proved to exist,
> we have to assume that it does not
This is an epistemological question; that is, what are the "ways of knowing" truth? I would suggest that empirical studies are one way of knowing, but not the only way.