Bioethics is a strange field. Not only are there no objective qualifications for being a bioethicist, but one need not even hold views that are deemed ethical by most morally sane people. Indeed, it seems that the field of bioethics consists primarily of liberals who hold to a utilitarian philosophy of ethics in which almost everything is permissible. That is why you can have bioethicists advocating infanticide in respectable bioethics journals like the Journal of Medical Ethics. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva wrote an article for the journal titled “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”[1] that appeared online February 23, 2012.
The abstract reads:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
While I disagree vehemently with their reasoning and conclusion, this is where the arguments for abortion logically lead one to. The authors recognize that birth is a trivial and subjective dividing line for determining who is valuable and who is not; who can be killed and who cannot.
HT: Wesley Smith
[1]J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411.
Thinking to Believe 
March 1, 2012 at 10:57 am
The Telegraph has picked this story up as well: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html. They provide additional background information on the authors. It’s also interesting how those defending the article are clear that these arguments are not new, but based on existing logic used to defend abortion.
Jason
LikeLike
March 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Has anyone checked to make sure that the authors actually hold this view and it is not just a parody? It sure sound like one.
LikeLike
March 1, 2012 at 2:06 pm
I have not read the article because I don’t want to pay for it, but it appears that the author of the Telegraph article has, and it’s clear from the interviews that he has done that this is their view. This is not the first scholars have supported infanticide, so this is not unheard of or totally surprising. What is surprising is the increasing number who are, where they are advocating their views, and how it is becoming more accepted in academic circles.
Jason
LikeLike
March 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm
ogtracy,
As ridiculous and insanely crazy as this sounds, I assure you, this is not a parody. This is not a case of “too bad to be true.” I’ve been following this story for a few days now.
Julian Savulescu is the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics and the director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Savulescu
The two “ethicists” that wrote this piece (of trash) are two of his former colleagues. I assure you, they are very much serious.
LikeLike
March 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm
In the article the “ethicists” posit that “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Their first premise, that “the moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus” is actually a premise that has been used by the Pro-Life movement for decades. In accepting the premise of Pro-Lifers they might have actually committed a fatal error. The next step is to use their acceptance of that premise against them.
If their 2nd premise and thus their conclusion can be proven false, their first premise necessitates the absolute abolition of human abortion.
LikeLike
March 1, 2012 at 3:56 pm
According the their website, “The Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics.”
http://jme.bmj.com/site/about/index.xhtml
This is not something to be taken lightly, and anyone that does might be akin to an ostrich.
LikeLike
March 1, 2012 at 7:07 pm
jasondulle, I don’t think you have to pay for it. I got the pdf from the same page the abstract was on.
Here’s the url:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html
The article does sound very serious. God save us.
LikeLike
March 1, 2012 at 9:21 pm
What stupidity to confuse and conflate a being with personhood- mind and feeling for pain- with one who has neither as the enforced pregnancy mob dor!
What do the authors actually maintain? What is the context?
What would Arthur Caplan and Paul Kurtz remark?
Reason saves!
LikeLike
March 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm
In context, they’re talking about severely deformed babies with probably pain. I differ about the personhood aspect- most babies should live. Down syndrome ones should live.
Hard cases don’t make for that non sequitur the slippery slope and the all or nothing arguments.
AW ,eh?
LikeLike
March 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Lord Griggs,
The abstract says that the authors argue that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”
LikeLike
March 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm
I don’t agree with them on that point!
LikeLike
March 3, 2012 at 3:30 am
[…] After birth abortions? Basically the logical conclusions of the general pro-choice position. Read more. […]
LikeLike
March 5, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Griggs,
As Ogtracy points out, these guys are not limiting themselves to infants with severe deformities, but even if they were…so what? It is still hideous.
You say it is stupid “to confuse and conflate a being with personhood.” Why? What’s the difference between a human being and a human person. And don’t just provide me with a laundry list of characteristics that make someone a person. I want to know where you got your list, and demonstrate how it is not subjective and question-begging.
Jason
LikeLike
March 5, 2012 at 2:18 pm
The list speaks for itself. Accept it or not.
We get it from the nature of personhood- the list reflects the facts-consciousness,etc. That reflects ojbectivity. Thus, no begged question exists.
I disagree with them.
Persons with such defects suffer.
LikeLike
March 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm
You haven’t even provided a list. But I can I know what would be on it.
This is circular reasoning at its best. You look at those persons you consider persons, note their characteristics, and then use that as the criteria for personhood. That is far from objective. And if it is objective, demonstrate that your list is the right list through objective argumentation.
Jason
LikeLike
March 5, 2012 at 8:32 pm
With what you agree, is objective but otherwise no.Haivng consciousness, no major defficulties cauing great pain, and such are objective facts. The Supreme Court’s rulings reflect this. Averring that a blastocyte has personhood reflects whims.
Objective in that our inter-subjectivity as in science enters the picture.None exists for the other view.
The real contention would be how far back in months should the limit be when the list notes when personhood is there. Where on the continuum does that decision lie?
I have no more on this to note.
AW, do you?
LikeLike
March 6, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Ah, Lord Griggs again, with his atheistic attempts to justify morality which logically cannot exist in an atheistic universe! How’s that working for you?
You keep babbling on and on about “objective facts”. Here’s an objective fact. That “fetus” is a human being. Here’s what’s not an objective fact: that the very existence of suffering is pure evil. You and all other atheists should admit to what you really are: hedonists.
So what if a being feels pain? Is that the sole determinant of its moral rights? Pain? So if someone had a physical incapacity where they have an inability to feel pain, does that mean it’s ok to harm them?
IT IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE FACT THAT PERSONHOOD RESTS ON “HAVING CONSCIOUSNESS, OR THE CAPACITY TO FEEL PAIN”. YOU say so. I DON’T. But then again you are an atheist and like all atheists you have a massive ego problem.
WHO SAYS PERSONHOOD IS HOW YOU DEFINED IT? Yes, it’s an objective fact that an embryo cannot “feel”, or maybe it’s not, there’s not way to disprove it, but it’s NOT an objective fact that that is what determines personhood. I define personhood as belonging to the human race. Case closed.
How do you justify your beliefs in an atheistic world?
Explain yourself and stop resorting to your pathetic attempts at claiming something is “objective”.
LikeLike
March 6, 2012 at 8:21 pm
I view the ability to deal with pain as a noble trait, and those who want to kill themselves are nothing more than cowards who don’t deserve life in the first place because they don’t value it.
Now, Griggs, I’m going to come up with an arbitrary way of defining this “personhood” concept (who even came up with this? from where did this idea originate? who says it’s valid?). All those who disagree with me are not persons and should be killed. In your atheistic world, you can’t disprove it.
All you have is your pathetic and selfish hedonism.
Maybe you should be the one to be killed off rather than babies.
So pathetic. He feels pain! He should be killed.
We put animals out of their misery because they are just that, animals. They have no free will and gain nothing from feeling pain, whereas for us, pain and suffering are tests that reveal our strength of character and the power of our will.
LikeLike
March 6, 2012 at 8:31 pm
All those who advocate euthanasia (that’s what this is) believe in the arbitrary concept of “quality of life”. This is another indication of how cowardly most people are, as any amount of challenge to them scares them off and they’d rather die.
Euthanasia and “quality of life” arguments are the pinnacle of cowardice.
You make me sick.
LikeLike
March 6, 2012 at 8:51 pm
DD,
“I view the ability to deal with pain as a noble trait, and those who want to kill themselves are nothing more than cowards who don’t deserve life in the first place because they don’t value it.”
I’m a bit curious, DD. What is it that’s special about leaving. I remember that the writer of Ecclesiastes pronounced the dead better than the living and those who had never been born better than them both. Paul also admitted that he would rather be with Christ that here on earth. I haven’t found live all that desirable either. There’s music and beauty and chocolate chip pancakes, but to be honest, I don’t think much of it at all.
So, your comment really intrigued me. What’s so great about living?Why is it something you should deserve?
LikeLike
March 6, 2012 at 9:01 pm
OGTracy, if you don’t value your life, why do you bother to keep on living yourself?
The whole purpose of Christianity as it is understood in most mainstream versions is Eternal Life.
Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon when he was extremely bitter, you have to consider the context to gain some insight into what the man was thinking.
I can’t say whether or not I deserve to live because that’s obviously like asking a(n) (unrepentant) murderer whether what he or she did was wrong. It’s up to the moral judgement of society to decide whether someone deserves the death penalty or not, and up to God to judge in the afterlife.
I love life, every second of it, see no reason why I shouldn’t love it. Perhaps you’re too demanding and ungrateful for the things in your life that are positive.
Don’t expect me to be kind to someone who doesn’t value life. If you don’t value life, why should anyone value you or your opinion, even in a purely subjective moral system like atheism?
LikeLike
March 6, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Of course Paul would rather be in Heaven. Most would. That’s why it’s Heaven, it’s better than life on Earth. Yet I still view life on Earth, my mortal life, as being more desirable than death. Paul didn’t say he’d rather be dead, he meant it in the sense of preferring Heaven to this life.
LikeLike
March 7, 2012 at 6:47 am
DD,
Firstly, let me simply point out that I’m a Christian so there’s no need to tell me about atheism. When I contrast life with death, I’m contrasting this life with the next and you do agree that it is very much better.
Secondly, you didn’t really answer my question. I asked what was so wonderful about living as compared to dying and you simply said that you love life and see no reason why you shouldn’t love it. I really want to know what it is that you see and I don’t. I’m thankful for every way in which God has blessed me but I don’t see those things as a convincing reason to choose life if death were there given the fact that there are horrible things too.
As for why I keep on living, isn’t it obvious? I want to live. I just don’t know why. So, I’ll ask again, given the horror that this world is, and the beauty of the next, why keep on living?
LikeLike
March 7, 2012 at 6:53 am
As for Ecclesiastes, I understand what you mean about the tone, but I don’t think that detracts from the truth of the words. I have read the whole book. (although it was a while ago).
1. Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun:
I saw the tears of the oppressed—
and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors—
and they have no comforter.
2. And I declared that the dead,
who had already died,
are happier than the living,
who are still alive.
3. But better than both
is the one who has never been born,
who has not seen the evil
that is done under the sun.
I disagree with verse 1, because God has given us a comforter, indeed, he is our comforter, but it seems to me that one would rather not mourn at all than mourn and be comforted. But I’m pretty much in agreement with verses 2 and 3.
LikeLike
March 7, 2012 at 1:25 pm
OGTracy, to me, all the horrors of this world do not outweigh the great things that do happen in life. Why is life of value? God created life, so it clearly has some value, otherwise, it wouldn’t be so. You’ll really have to take this one up with our Creator, as it is impossible to truly justify anything, in terms of value, using pure reason alone. It’s the instinct that life has value, which, I assume, like the rest of our conscience, was given to us by God. I answered your question with the assumption that it was directed at me.
God created life. God doesn’t do things without a reason. Life is still around. Therefore, there is a reason why life is still around and why it was created in the first place. You’re basically asking me why did God create us, etc.? I don’t know the answer to that question.
I see a lot of pain in the world but there’s plenty of great things out there that clearly outweigh the bad, otherwise I would assume there would be a lot more suicides. You take the good and the bad and that’s what reveals how much you’re willing to fight. That’s life. It’s a struggle, and it’s certainly no divine right of ours to be happy 24/7. Heaven isn’t a right. It’s bad sure, but it could potentially be a LOT worse. You’re judging the value of something purely in terms of pleasure and pain. Pain is a good way to test your morals, as it is during times of trial that we show what we are made of. It’s easy to be a positive person and be all nice and happy when everything’s going great. It’s during times of trial that we see if people are still willing to hold on to their values, or if they give up when faced with adversity.
As for Ecclesiastes, I find Blue Letter Bible has good commentary on Biblical passages.
LikeLike
March 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm
DD,
Your reply makes some sense. Perhaps our instinct that living is worth something is god give and he knows something about it that we don’t. Perhaps there is something about our lives here on earth that makes the next qualitatively different.
I guess we can just agree that we don’t know.
LikeLike
March 7, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva wrote an article for the journal titled “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”
Kind of sounds like Adolph Hitler to me.
LikeLike
March 7, 2012 at 9:10 pm
OGTracy,
Personally, it wouldn’t be the first time I’m left stumped as to the meaning of life and its existence.
Life is a mystery.
LikeLike
March 8, 2012 at 12:21 am
DD, Yes, with my humanist morality,people can practice morality without using that of that vengeful simple subjectivism.
No, the fact is no foetus can be a person; you’re being quite wrong about that.Bentham scores with the pleasure-pain principle which we now with Harris note as the principle of wellness.
The Supreme Court and ethicists relying on facts find your arbitrary definition perverse.
Why do you have that massive ego problem that keeps the blinders on so that you only see your arbitrariness as truth. No, ti’s not our massive egos but instead our massive acceptance of reason and facts.
I note objectivity as what all can discern without blinders on and having a good moral sense.
Following the divine command theory keeps one from finding true objectivity ; It makes one have that arbitrary simple subjectivism that bespeaks blindness.
Again, that straw man about our morality bespeaks not trying to fathom it whatsoever!
We use our considered judgments instead of simple subjectivism, which in the hand of such as Lord Russell surpasses that of those misanthropes! Ours reflects what Kant calls the good will whilst others use that we can call that of the misanthropic will.
Thus, humanists and many believers who in fact do reflect our wide reflective subjectivism that Kant notes, in effect.
Thankfully that even Orthodox Jewry does not rely on that mad morality of those misanthropes!
Misanthropes gleefully talk about His love and his Hell when that itself is hellish! To pontificate in parables whilst keeping ones views from the many or to harden someones heart so as to incur more misery hardly amounts to a serious moral way of life!
Fortunately as Steven Pinker and Richard Carrier reveal , humankind is better morally than in the ages of faith! That misanthropy allowed slavery, misogyny and other horrors whilst humankind with our evolved moral sense that it refined outgrew relishing in those horrors!
Why would our considered judgments err? Why would discerning the real facts,using reason instead of mere whims and tastes err? Why would objurgating that egregious morality of those misanthropes err? Why would following that good will err?
No, ti’s not that you’re on the losing side that counts as argument but instead that your egregious adherence to the divine forked tongue command theory errs. Certainly, those who adhere to that theory when they do morality right follow us humanists instead of our following that morality of those misanthropes that no one can ever justify as justifiable eons ago!
The Vatican’s use of divine command theory reflects that of those misanthropes when it disfavors contraception and such.
Yes, the divine command theory bespeaks that forked tongue which then comes forth as vacuous as it could endorse most any matter as long as people relish in God says so. We do know by their fruits what Christopher Hitchens and others note that that can lead to horrors in the wrong hands.
Thus, in the end we are at the start with the Euthyphro that such as Ockham cannot gainsay! The capricious wrong horn blasphemes reason,morality and – humanity!
Case opened for humanity but the case for divine command theory closed itself eons ago!
LikeLike
March 9, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Griggs:
“DD, Yes, with my humanist morality,people can practice morality without using that of that vengeful simple subjectivism.”
Atheism can’t provide objective morality. It’s all what we decide, which is relative.
“No, the fact is no foetus can be a person; you’re being quite wrong about that.Bentham scores with the pleasure-pain principle which we now with Harris note as the principle of wellness.”
First of all, neither Bentham nor Harris are “gods”, they are humans, with fallible human minds, so I don’t care what they say, if I think they are wrong, I’ll say it and I have no fear of saying it. Pleasure-pain reduces to hedonism. Congratulations, you’ve exposed your own moral theory as nothing more than hedonism.
Who came up with the term “person”? Since when has it been in existence? How many possible definitions exist for that term? Why is your definition the supreme definition for us all?
“The Supreme Court and ethicists relying on facts find your arbitrary definition perverse.”
Your definition is just as arbitrary. Who came up with it? In atheism, everything is relative anyway, so it’s also relative from that point of view. The Supreme Court means nothing. Slavery used to be legal, remember that.
“Why do you have that massive ego problem that keeps the blinders on so that you only see your arbitrariness as truth. No, ti’s not our massive egos but instead our massive acceptance of reason and facts.”
You are the one with a massive ego problem since you truly cannot see anything other than what you agree with. Atheism = Nihilism. Any viewpoint or lack of viewpoint is equally valid. It’s amazing. You are an atheist, and atheism can’t account for moral objectivity, yet you call MY VIEWS to be arbitrary when your views are just as arbitrary. Are you a child? Reason and facts? Here’s a fact. NOTHING CAN EVER MATTER IN ATHEISM, OBJECTIVELY, AND RATIONALLY SPEAKING. NOTHING. AND NO AMOUNT OF NONSENSE THAT YOU SPEW WILL EVER CHANGE THAT.
“I note objectivity as what all can discern without blinders on and having a good moral sense.”
Yet, there’s so many people out there who disagree with your worldview. So what is there to say about that in your moral system? Not all can “discern without blinders” your moral “views”. That’s all they are under atheism. Opinions. I don’t agree with you, and many others don’t. That’s an objective fact. Back in the day, most people followed those religions. That was an objective fact. So why should your view today be any more right than before? You might say “well our knowledge improved”. But that’s science, not moral knowledge. Human nature has remained the same.
“Following the divine command theory keeps one from finding true objectivity ; It makes one have that arbitrary simple subjectivism that bespeaks blindness.”
HA HA HA. Seriously. You’re a joker. Divine command provides a basis for objective morals. Atheism leads to arbitrary sumple subjectivsm that bespeaks blindness. YOUR blindness.
“Again, that straw man about our morality bespeaks not trying to fathom it whatsoever!”
No straw man whatsoever. Wrong again. Prove there’s a straw man. Prove it. Don’t say it. PROVE IT. Come on, I dare you. Bet you you can’t. Unless you’re arrogant enough to believe you can succeed where all other atheistic moral philosophers have failed. Do you even know what a straw man is?
“We use our considered judgments instead of simple subjectivism, which in the hand of such as Lord Russell surpasses that of those misanthropes!”
Yet, you abortion pushers aren’t misanthropes? You euthanasia pushers aren’t misanthropes? Considered judgements? Yes, those judgements consider the consequences of people’s actions, and whether they lead to certain conditions in our lives. Some conditions you deem good, others bad. But how do you define what good is? Perhaps it’s best that all life perishes. You can’t refute that under atheism. Only preferences, simple subjective preferences can construct morality, even if it is objective in the sense that the MAJORITY of people can agree, if that majority were to disappear, the minority’s view would become the new normal. Or if we became extinct, there would be no morality left. Plus, according to you, human nature is the result of random, irrational natural selection. It’s an arbitrary subjective judgement to call us misanthropes. I can throw around words like that too.
“Ours reflects what Kant calls the good will whilst others use that we can call that of the misanthropic will.”
How amazing! You are perfect, and anyone who disagrees with you is a misanthrope! WE DO NOT HATE HUMANITY YOU ARROGANT FOOL! We do not wish to lower humanity to the level of animals, where an adult chimp has more rights than an unborn HUMAN baby. THAT is anti-human. But then again, you’re too arrogant to see the truth.
“Thus, humanists and many believers who in fact do reflect our wide reflective subjectivism that Kant notes, in effect.
Thankfully that even Orthodox Jewry does not rely on that mad morality of those misanthropes!”
These two staments mean nothing. Atheism offers no morality. That’s all I have to say.
“Misanthropes gleefully talk about His love and his Hell when that itself is hellish! To pontificate in parables whilst keeping ones views from the many or to harden someones heart so as to incur more misery hardly amounts to a serious moral way of life!”
Your atheism devalues human life. Atheists are pro abortion, pro euthanasia, pro animal rights above certain “types” (as you like to call them) of humans, etc.
“Fortunately as Steven Pinker and Richard Carrier reveal , humankind is better morally than in the ages of faith! That misanthropy allowed slavery, misogyny and other horrors whilst humankind with our evolved moral sense that it refined outgrew relishing in those horrors!”
HA. Our nature has remained the same. We’re no different genetically. So we definitely didn’t “evolve”. All you can provide for common values is our “human nature” which evolved randomly by natural selection. This is getting silly. Your atheistic evolutionism has led to Social Darwinism, hedonism, moral nihilism, moral relativism, abortion, euthanasia, basically, everything that goes against human nature.
“Why would our considered judgments err? Why would discerning the real facts,using reason instead of mere whims and tastes err? Why would objurgating that egregious morality of those misanthropes err? Why would following that good will err?”
It’s getting obvious your whole way or arguing relies on attacking others as being “misanthropes” (did you learn a new word over the past week or something?), instead of showing WHY we’re wrong. This isn’t philosphy. This is emotional non-sense, attacking others because we disagree with you. YOUR JUDGEMENT ARE IRRELEVANT IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR OBJECTIVE MORALITY. LIKE I SAID, IF IT’S CULTURAL, IT’S CLEARLY RELATIVE. IF IT’S INNATE, IT’S GENETIC, IN WHICH CASE IT’S THE RESULT OF RANDOM NATURAL SELECITON. IF NOT YOU HAVE TO ARGUE FOR SOME SORT OF ABSTRACT MORALITY, ALMOST LIKE IN PLATONISM, BUT THAT CANNOT ARISE FROM THE MERE WORKINGS OF MATTER, AS IN NATURALISM.
“No, ti’s not that you’re on the losing side that counts as argument but instead that your egregious adherence to the divine forked tongue command theory errs.”
To be losing, one must actually be involved in some sort of competition or contest. For that, you need some foundation for your beliefs in the first place. Atheism cannot account for that. Not only have you lost the “game” (since we’re talking about losing “sides”), but you haven’t even made it to the ballpark. Sorry my friend.
“Certainly, those who adhere to that theory when they do morality right follow us humanists instead of our following that morality of those misanthropes that no one can ever justify as justifiable eons ago!”
According to you, YOU SAID THIS, moral knowledge keeps evolving. So HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU HOLD ALL THOSE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE IF “THAT’S THE BEST THEY COULD DO BACK THEN”? You realize this means our own views, AND YOUR VIEWS, will be mocked by someone a few years down the road just as you mock other people’s views?
AND ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT FOR EVEYRONE’S MORALS VIEWS BY SAYING WITHOUT YOU, WE WOULDN’T BE MORAL? WOW. Just WOW. You are more egocentric than I thought. You almost think you’re God.
“The Vatican’s use of divine command theory reflects that of those misanthropes when it disfavors contraception and such.”
Ah. Misanthropes again. I think this is the 1000000000th time you’ve said it in this post alone. Seriously. It’s getting old. You must have a very limited vocabulary and possibly a low IQ since you must resort to name-calling rather than rational rebate. Their regusal to allow contraception is because it is not “natural”, just as you base your morality off of human nature. So it’s ok when you do it, but not ok when others do it? You really do think you’re God, don’t you?
“Yes, the divine command theory bespeaks that forked tongue which then comes forth as vacuous as it could endorse most any matter as long as people relish in God says so.”
That would be a fact. In the sense that it exists outside of ourselves, outside of our minds, it would be there just as the Law of Gravity would still be there, even if we were to go extinct. That’s how you justify objective morality, not by relying on “human nature” which is based on genetics and which results from irrational, random, natural selection.
“We do know by their fruits what Christopher Hitchens and others note that that can lead to horrors in the wrong hands.”
I actually don’t disagree with that statement. It’s possible to use God to justify your moral views, even if they are wrong. So? That’s like saying it’s possible to use atheism for evil. It applies to you as well.
“Thus, in the end we are at the start with the Euthyphro that such as Ockham cannot gainsay!”
Again, I thoroughly made an attempt to refute you, but since you’re not here to discuss philosphy, you simply ignore it. It’s about what exists objectively, just like a law of nature, outside of the preferences of any species. Thus, humanity can then perceive that objectively-existing law. Whether you disagree or not is not relevant. Ockham’s razor is misued here. In fact, it’s more believable the system we call the Universe was DESIGNED. It’s the simpler explanation. Imagine pieces of paper with words on it on a piece of paper. What’s more likely to lead to a complex, intelligent message? The wind blowing the pieces of paper off the table randomly on the ground and whatever happens, happens? Or me taking the pieces of paper with words on them and re-arranging them for an intelligent message?
“The capricious wrong horn blasphemes reason,morality and – humanity!”
Again, in atheism, morality is non-existent, objectively speaking.
“Case opened for humanity but the case for divine command theory closed itself eons ago!”
Not at all. Case closed for atheism to prove objective morality as if you haven’t been able to up until now I doubt you’ll be able to in the future, whereas divine command theory is the only way to justify morality objectively without appealing to “human nature” which in atheism evolved randomly. AGAIN, think of those genes which might lead someone to evil behaviors. Genes that lead to overly aggressive behavior, perhaps some that might lead to psychopathy. Are those genes also to be worshiped? What if we have the ability to genetically engineer humans and change human nature? What then?
Whatever you are, you are no philosopher. You simply use philosophy to justify your beliefs. I already told you, back when I was atheistic, I followed my worldview and was nihilistic, then when I became a theist, I also followed the logical conclusions of my worldview. If it’s true, I’ll follow those morals, if not, what’s the point?
LikeLike
March 9, 2012 at 8:43 pm
No Griggs, you are not “rational” person. You use emotions, and name-calling like “misanthropes” to validate your views. That’s not rational, nor philosophical. If you were to have a debate with an academic using this language I wouldn’t be surprised if they walked out on your or if you were kicked off the stage for being so disrespectful to those you are debating with.
Again, let’s justify morality. Culture? Clearly not, as culture is relative, very relative. Human nature? That’s the result of random natural selection. Human nature is what leads most of us to value life and avoid harm. Although it’s possible to love pain and hate life, it would be deviating from our human nature. There are those who love pain, surely you know of them. There are those who hate humanity, who hate life, and wish to end it. Misanthropes, of course. So human nature is the only reason why we are opposed to those things. Yet human nature (including our will to live) is innate, which means it’s genetic, which is the result of random evolution.
So justify morality, please do. You keep talking about “consequences” which we can all see using reason. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT COMPLETELY. It’s objectively true that we can see what most people like or dislike, yes. But that’s just descriptive ethics of the majority of the population. Moral theories like consequentialism fall into normative ethics, which decides basically how to see what is moral, etc.
WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY FOUNDATION FOR MORALITY. That means META-ETHICS. And in atheism, there’s no foundation for morality. Humanity, and even the rest of life can say we dislike something, most of us at least, yet, the universe itself is uncaring. LOOK AT IT THIS WAY: IF WE WERE TO NOT EXIST ANYMORE, THEN OUR VALUES WOULD NOT EXIST ANYMORE EITHER. SO THAT MEANS MORALITY IS RELATIVE, DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT A LIVING BEING IS THERE OR NOT. Whereas in divine command theory, even if humanity were to disappear, the laws would be there just as the Law of Gravity would still be there.
THAT is the issue. Your morality is subjective, thus relative. Even if you can come up with a morality ruled by what the majority think (based off of human nature, I assume), it would be relative from one species’ interests to another, and it would be firmly based on the existence of consciousness. If consciousness is gone, so too is morality. So morality exists in our minds. And the only way to come up with anything resembling “universal” ethics in atheism is to go off of human nature, as culture would imply relativism. Yet, human nature is the result of blind natural selection. And once human genetic engineering comes around, we’ll be able to change human nature. So who says we can’t? If we can change one gene, why not another? Oh, we don’t agree, as a whole? And why not? Because we have a feeling that it’s wrong? Well, if it’s so universal, it’s a part of human nature, which means it’s genetic and the result of random natural selection.
This is circular reasoning.
Whatever you are Griggs, you are no philosopher.
LikeLike
March 9, 2012 at 9:01 pm
And stop calling us misanthropes. You used the word at least ten times in that paragraph you wrote. Do you realize how much you rely on attacking us rather than rationally debunking our views? You make references to these other philosophers (the fallacy of the appeal to authority, since you like to always accuse others of committing a “fallacy”, which is your way of dismissing their views, when most of the time, no fallacy has been committed, not at all), as though they are gods. They are YOUR gods, indeed they are.
Misanthropy means hating humanity. Thus, it’s ANTI-human. Valuing an adult chimp more than an unborn baby is ANTI-HUMAN. Euthanasia devalues human life to nothing more than mere preferences of “quality of life”. Devaluing human life is ANTI-HUMAN. Killing off unborn babies is ANTI-HUMAN, as it is a HUMAN life, and LIFE comes before other preferences such as those used to justify abortion.
You shift between your personism which justifies abortion and humanism. If you value humans, you value HUMANS. But you don’t value humans, YOU VALUE “PERSONS”, which seems to be a very arbitrary word which varies from culture to culture and from time period to time period. Did you ever do any research on the topic of personhood? I have. I can assure you, your definition has never been as universal as you claim it to be, even today.
So when valuing humans suits you, you call us misanthropes, yet when it doesn’t, you say “persons” have rights, not humans.
You are no philosopher Griggs. You are not objective, nor rational, Griggs.
You use your philosophy simply to justify whatever beliefs you hold, instead of using reason and philosophy to come to beliefs and a worldview.
You are arrogant, Griggs. You mock those who disagree with you.
You fail to refute arguments, Griggs. I’ve provided countless arguments against EACH point you made of JW Wartick’s blog. You rarely reply with anything more than claiming I committed a fallacy (which I am starting to think you use simply to make yourself look smart since I doubt you know what they mean — the only fallacy you claimed I committed that even remotely made sense was the fallacy of composition when we were discussing philosophy of mind and materialism, yet I pointed out it doesn’t always apply).
I know even your next comment will rely on nothing more than going back to your argument about “consequences”, being able to see those consequences, etc. But those consequences are not valued by you for any purely rational and objective reason. They are based off of feelings, just like for everyone else. It’s not obvious, philosophically speaking, that there is any inherent value to life if atheistic evolutionism is true. Life evolved, but was an accident, really. It wasn’t intended. The Universe didn’t consciously plan the existence of life.
You claim you share a lot in common with AW from JW Wartick’s blog, but he truly does seem to seek truth, which is why I enjoy debating with him, whereas with you it’s simply an annoyance really. AW is objective and reasonable.
You’re childish.
And stop claiming your definition of “personhood” is the only possible definition. That’s just what YOU think, and other people like you. NOT everyone believes that, and even if your definition of “personhood” was objectively true, it is not obvious under atheism that “persons” need to be respected.
Morality hasn’t “evolved”. Sure, more moral systems and philosophies have come about, but that’s just various ways to bring about morality (consequentialism, utilitarianism, etc.) yet all those systems rely off of certain values that most of us share which are based off of emotion, in turn based off of human nature. The only way for morality (moral values) to have evolved is for our feelings of something to have evolved. Besides, so what if something “evolved”? That implies teleology, the way you worded that statement. Perhaps you mean “PROGRESS”, yet that’s begging the question, as you haven’t answered, TOWARDS WHAT END-GOAL ARE WE PROGRESSING? And who says you can justify that objectively speaking, without relying on our feelings based off of randomly evolved human nature?
I’m starting to have enough of you. AW is a much more rational person than you and it’s fun to talk to him. You on the other hand, no.
LikeLike
March 9, 2012 at 9:10 pm
”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
A person (plural: persons or people; from Latin: persona, meaning “mask”) is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, the precise definition of which is the subject of much controversy.
In ancient Rome, the word “persona” (Latin) or “prosopon” (πρόσωπον: Greek) originally referred to the masks worn by actors on stage. The various masks represented the various “personae” in the stage play, while the masks themselves helped the actor’s voice resonate and made it easier for the audience to hear.[1] In Roman law, the word “persona” became used to refer to a role played in court, and it became established that it was the role rather than the actor that could have rights, powers, and duties, because different individuals could assume the same roles, the rights, powers, and duties followed the role rather than the actor, and each individual could act in more than one role, each a different “person” in law.
The concept of a “person” was further developed during the Trinitarian and Christological debates of the first through sixth centuries. Since then, a number of important changes to the word’s meaning and use have taken place, and attempts have been made to redefine the word with varying degrees of adoption and influence. Many modern speakers of colloquial English conflate the meanings of role and actor, which can result in some confusion when they try to enter into legal discourse.”
Ironically, Griggs, personhood theory owes much to Christianity, that very religion you hate so much. So ironic.
You are no philosopher, Griggs.
LikeLike
March 9, 2012 at 10:05 pm
So, again, like I said before, the concept of “personhood” didn’t ALWAYS exist. It didn’t ALWAYS even refer to who should deserve legal rights. It didn’t ALWAYS have the same definition, differing from time period and from culture to culture.
It’s simply a word that we gave meaning to. Don’t use personhood as that ace up your sleeve. It goes back to whether you value humanity or whether you value “consciousness”, abilities, pain and please, at least in the context of our discussion. That’s because you are an atheistic consequentialist who can only look at how things affect us in this life, in terms of consciousness, abilities, etc. Reducing basically to what we value in terms of what like, or not. Preferences. What we like… so hedonism, in a sense. That’s why you don’t value life, you value “abilities” because that’s what you believe gives your life meaning.
Yet, in atheism, abilities came first, with no purpose, then, out of the many possible things we could choose to value or not value, a certain group of people like you chose to value abilities only. Well, in theism, the overall plan, or design of creation comes first. Values are what determines what the Creator designs, and how. If it didn’t go in with God’s values, it would have been done differently, obviously. Therefore, assuming purpose, teleology, etc., and design in the Universe, we can see that it’s likely that our value came first, and it is, so to speak, within our essence almost, our nature, it was sort of programmed into the very plot of the Universe, if you can call it that, this Story that we are living through. Otherwise, if abilities came first, it seems likely that God just randomly created various creatures with various abilities then gave them value based on those abilities. Not 100% on this. It is possible in both cases that it wasn’t totally random, and that even if abilities go away, our value (think of it as a list God made of species, and a level of value attached to each: “[INSERT NAME OF SPECIES] – [INSERT LEVEL OF VALUE]) would still be there. But, creating abilities, then giving them values, is random, as far as I can see. It would mean those values didn’t exist before, otherwise, God wouldn’t have created those abilities if they were deemed “immoral”, or something of the sort.
In consequentialist atheism, these “values” of species don’t exist. Not objectively. That’s why you go off of abilities, among the many possible values, or lack of values, respectively.
Consequentialism is far from being settled.
Yet you pass off your subjective values as being objective. They’re not.
Just like the ability to use reason and see consequences of our actions which bring about various conditions for us in our lives. It is true we have this ability to judge various states of being. But according to WHAT STANDARD DO WE JUDGE? Hmmm??? Again, it goes back to what our values are, and since you attempt to say values are objective, you have to appeal to human nature, which is the result of indifferent processes of natural selection.
I don’t think you realize what random evolution entails. It literally means that, even if a certain mutation that changed how we perceive reality (so that our brains can’t comprehend the truth as it exists in reality), it wouldn’t matter as long as it helped us survive. Perhaps what helps us survive is to ignore the truth, in some cases. According to you, religion is not true. Yet, it’s undeniable that religion has served a purpose in societies, to bring about common morality for us and enable societal order, which in turn enabled us to “progress” as civilizations.
So give me a break with your evangelizing, ok? You’re not going to convert me to your religion.
LikeLike