Advocating infanticide

[superwolf]

Suppose, for example, that parents knew in advance of a baby's birth that it would be born without arms and legs. In such cases, I most non-religious people support the parents' right to terminate this life. Some are more controversial, however. Philosopher Peter singer argues that the same principle applies up to 28 days after birth. In the case of lives that would be irredeemably difficult and painful, Singer endorses not simply euthanasia of the unborn, but infanticide.

I must admit that what Singer proposes feels wrong, but I have a hard time trying to defend my opposition rationally. What is the differene between a seriously impaired fetus and a newborn? The mere fact that the latter is alive outside of the womb is trivial, since in either case this being has a painful life ahead of it that is not worth living. I think the parents would be right to kill the baby (without it suffering) and make a new one.

Singer does not advocate that the State begin to abort or kill any and all disabled fetuses or newborns; rather, parents, together with their physicians, should have the right to decide whether the infant's life will be so miserable that it would be inhumane to prolong it. Singer clearly is not offering carte blanch on killing babies: He would establish very strict conditions on permissible instances of infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to any intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.

I really shocked myself now...

Do you agree or disagree?

[drankin]

Suppose, for example, that parents knew in advance of a baby's birth that it would be born without arms and legs. In such cases, I most non-religious people support the parents' right to terminate this life. Some are more controversial, however. Australian philosopher Peter singer argues that the same principle applies up to 28 days after birth. In the case of lives that would be irredeemably difficult and painful, Singer endorses not simply euthanasia of the unborn, but infanticide.

I must admit that what Singer proposes feels wrong, but I have a hard time trying to defend my opposition rationally. What is the differene between a seriously impaired fetus and a newborn? The mere fact that the latter is alive outside of the womb is trivial, since in either case this being has a painful life ahead of it that is not worth living. I think the parents would be right to kill the baby (without it suffering) and make a new one.

Singer does not advocate that the State begin to abort or kill any and all disabled fetuses or newborns; rather, parents, together with their physicians, should have the right to decide whether the infant's life will be so miserable that it would be inhumane to prolong it. Singer clearly is not offering carte blanch on killing babies: He would establish very strict conditions on permissible instances of infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to any intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.

I really shocked myself now...

Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. There is a reason it is not practiced in civilized cultures. It's naturally wrong to kill a newborn. Naturally meaning, literally, unnatural. It goes against the maternal/paternal instinct. To come up with an intellectual reason why it should be allowed is wrong. IMO of course.

[superwolf]

That something is unnatural or against instinct, does not make it wrong? To me that seems like a poor fundament for ethics.

[Blenton]

We should follow the practices of spartans.

[a4mula]

I agree on many different levels.

natural selection, personal choice, lowering social responsibility.

I had taken time to explain each of these levels, but this is a topic that I'm sure will touch home to many out there. This isn't a personal stance against any individual or disability. It's merely a situation where I look at nature and how far we go to defy it.


It's naturally wrong to kill a newborn. Naturally meaning, literally, unnatural. It goes against the maternal/paternal instinct. To come up with an intellectual reason why it should be allowed is wrong.


Just the opposite if you ask me. It's quite unnatural to allow anything that will be unable survive on it's own to continue it's existence. We look through the real "nature" of animals and we see time and again that the unfit are left for dead or devoured. I'd venture to say that it's also our maternal/paternal instinct to kill that child in our own horror. Yet we are constrained by our concepts of morality.

[russ_watters]

Do you agree or disagree? Without an explanation of his logic, it is hard to agree or disagree with it. Can you give us a better explanation of the logic, as opposed to just stating the opinion? The only thing you said that hints at his logic is this: ...whether the infant's life will be so miserable that it would be inhumane to prolong it. But that goes against the concept of individual rights. The only person who truly knows if they are miserable is the person themselves. See: Steven Hawking.

For the time being, lets assume that abortion is acceptable up until a fetus reaches viability (meaning it can survive outside the womb without artificial life support beyond normal parental care). Using that basis, there is no moral difference between killing a fetus 1 day before it is born or killing a baby 1 day after it is born, which would tend to be an argument against the morality of abortion or infanticide. Prior to viability, the argument for abortion gets a little easier. But either way, it is tough to separate this discussion from the concept of abortion itself, and for abortion, unless you are an absolutist on either side, there is a line somewhere that is based on a person's individual logic.

IMO, when there is no clear line (what is the difference between a 20 day old baby and a 40 day old baby that makes it ok to kill the 20 day old baby?), it is a very difficult argument indeed, to say such an action is morally justifiable.

[russ_watters]

I agree on many different levels.

natural selection, personal choice, lowering social responsibility.

I had taken time to explain each of these levels, but this is a topic that I'm sure will touch home to many out there. This isn't a personal stance against any individual or disability. It's merely a situation where I look at nature and how far we go to defy it.

Just the opposite if you ask me. It's quite unnatural to allow anything that cannot survive on it's own to continue it's existence. We look through the real "nature" of animals and we see time and again that the unfit are left for dead or devoured. I'd venture to say that it's also our maternal/paternal instinct to kill that child in our own horror. Yet we are constrained by our concepts of morality. That is a rational argument from a biological point of view, however, hasn't the human species evolved beyond the biological constraints of other animals? Again, see: Stephen Hawking.

[a4mula]

That is a rational argument from a biological point of view, however, hasn't the human species evolved beyond the biological constraints of other animals? Again, see: Stephen Hawking.

It's not just the biological aspect, although that in itself I feel is a strong enough argument. Perhaps the day will come when we will be able to overcome natural selection through human manipulation. That day is not today however. The longer we allow compassion to dictate our gene pool, the more damage will be done.

There is also a social and individual angle to consider. As an individual should one not have the right to Pursue Happiness? My brother was born with full and completely debilitating cerebral palsy. I can tell you from a very personal point of view that this condition was quite the roadblock in our families pursuit of happiness. This single event shaped and changed my future, my families future and from my perspective it wasn't a positive change. I loved my brother, but in retrospect it would have been for the best had he died at birth. For nine years we as a family sacrificed much, and for what? It's difficult to separate emotion from logic, but in this case it's crystal clear for me.

Let us not forget the social responsibility aspect. Can we deny the countless billions that are lost each year to assisting those that are unable to assist themselves? Would this structure fly in any other animal society? We limit our potential by becoming slaves to those that are unable and unwilling. We live in a society (US) today where fascism has become the dominate economic theme. The irony here is that we don't have the guts to adopt social aspect of it. We want a best of both worlds scenario where the strong provide for the weak and everyone is fine. It doesn't work that way. To each their own, from the bottom of my heart.

[superwolf]

russ watters, you made some good points.

We must ask ourselves: "When should humans be regarded individuals and thereby get individual rights?". As soon as they're born? Even before? At the age of 2? Maybe birth is the most logical limit, because the fetus until then is a paracite in a woman's body?

[rootX]

Suppose, for example, that parents knew in advance of a baby's birth that it would be born without arms and legs.

Do you agree or disagree?

I would advocate for infanticide provided that
1) there is no cure for the infant disease
2) he wouldn't be able to live the life without pain
3) he is going to die in next few years/months

[superwolf]

That is a rational argument from a biological point of view, however, hasn't the human species evolved beyond the biological constraints of other animals? Again, see: Stephen Hawking.

Absolutely, and we should avoid using "it is natural" as an argument. Rape is natural.

[superwolf]

Can we deny the countless billions that are lost each year to assisting those that are unable to assist themselves? Would this structure fly in any other animal society?

Are you seriously suggesting that we should learn from the morals of animals?

We limit our potential by becoming slaves to those that are unable and unwilling.

How do you know they're unwilling?

[a4mula]

Are you seriously suggesting that we should learn from the morals of animals?

No, I'm suggesting that morals force us to corrupt natural systems. Animals have no morals and therefor can be seen as an unbiased view of what is really natural.



How do you know they're unwilling?

This statement applied albeit ambiguously to two different types of people

A) Unable

and/or

B) Unwilling

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,


superwolf, again with this kill / don’t kill questioning…

This is a tough one, as we would be taking care of a human being devoid of any means of physical self sustaining abilities. In the wild, such a newborn would naturally die shortly after birth.

In our human world, we could let the child grow and care for it, all the time being attentive to how it would manifest its inner self through actions, emotions and overall behaviour en route to hopefully bringing it to an age where, if the question ever would arise, it could decide for him/her self if life is to be continued or not.

If negative, we would then go over every possible aspect of the decision and alternatives before respectfully, and certainly painfully, obliging. This moment in time would be where we would pay our non-aborting bill.

Even then we’d be in a bind as the famous ethics would kick in and we could be convicted for assisting someone in death. The poor bugger would be reverting to hunger strike or trying to stop breathing or something of sorts.

In the more likely event that the question never comes about in such a direct way, than life as he/she/us would have known it, would simply continue, and who’s to say that the mental abilities of this person wouldn’t be able to help conceive of a very serious candidate of the long sought-after TOE… but then again, all this time we could have been loving a totally happy dunce and it would still all depend on us... wouldn’t it ?

Regards,

VE

[russ_watters]

It's not just the biological aspect, although that in itself I feel is a strong enough argument. Perhaps the day will come when we will be able to overcome natural selection through human manipulation. That day is not today however. The longer we allow compassion to dictate our gene pool, the more damage will be done. Steven Hawking has 3 kids, all of which were born after he started showing symptoms of ALS, and all of which grew up with a father, who in their formative years, was unable to care for himself. He most certainly did beat biological natural selection.
There is also a social and individual angle to consider. As an individual should one not have the right to Pursue Happiness? My brother was born with full and completely debilitating cerebral palsy. I can tell you from a very personal point of view that this condition was quite the roadblock in our families pursuit of happiness. This single event shaped and changed my future, my families future and from my perspective it wasn't a positive change. I loved my brother, but in retrospect it would have been for the best had he died at birth. For nine years we as a family sacrificed much, and for what? It's difficult to separate emotion from logic, but in this case it's crystal clear for me. The best for you if he had died at birth. The problem here is while you acknowledge the concept of individual rights, you don't really understand it or buy into it. Not only do rights carry responsibility, but rights also end where they interfere with the rights of others - and the right to life trumps the right to convenience. In other words, you are not entitled, under the concept of individual rights, to kill another person for your own convenience. Let us not forget the social responsibility aspect. Can we deny the countless billions that are lost each year to assisting those that are unable to assist themselves? The question of whether the government should support them is completely separate from whether we should kill them. They are not related at all. I'm not a fan of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but I most certainly do not advocate killing the disabled. Would this structure fly in any other animal society? As I have shown, we have advanced beyond animals if by no other reason than the fact that we have developed the concept of morality. Steven Hawking is a product of that advancement. We live in a society (US) today where fascism has become the dominate economic theme. Huh? Fascism isn't an economic theme... The irony here is that we don't have the guts to adopt social aspect of it. We want a best of both worlds scenario where the strong provide for the weak and everyone is fine. It doesn't work that way. To each their own, from the bottom of my heart. I'm a capitalist, but capitalism is still based on individual freedom - everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, which means that everyone must be provided what they need to grow to adulthood. I'm not a complete capitalist, but a complete capitalist would say that that responsibility falls soley on the parents. [separate post] No, I'm suggesting that morals force us to corrupt natural systems. Animals have no morals and therefor can be seen as an unbiased view of what is really natural. Just so we're clear here, are you suggesting that we should act based on biological instinct alone and abandon the concept of morality (which, I agree, is a completely human construct)? As superowlf suggested, rape is a biological instinct (not necessarily all animals have it...)...

Further, I would be inclined to argue that animals are not necessarily devoid of the concept of morality and biology, for higher mammals, requires it for their evolution to happen in the first place. Animals with intellegence have true social interaction and in a lot of cases show behavior that can have no other explanation but morality, as we humans would define it. The idea of rape, for example, as it relates to treatment of females in general and caring for young: some male animals would try to procreate as much as possible by raping as many femals as they can. But for higher mammals, the young require extended care to develop their intellegence and that means a family structure. Thus, rape (and abandonment) is not biologically beneficial to higher mammals. Our morality and biological evolution went in that direction together.

[russ_watters]

russ watters, you made some good points.

We must ask ourselves: "When should humans be regarded individuals and thereby get individual rights?". As soon as they're born? Even before? At the age of 2? Maybe birth is the most logical limit, because the fetus until then is a paracite in a woman's body?
That last on is how the advocates of abortion see it. Though it isn't how I see the issue, the moment of birth does provide a convenient place to draw a line.

[a4mula]

He most certainly did beat biological natural selection.

Is this the rule, or the exception? Life today would be quite unbearable if we based everything we did on the exceptions of reality. Morality did not triumph over Natural Selection. Was the ALS gene eradicated by this morality because his 3 children weren't affected? No, they just become carriers. ALS is allowed to continue it's propagation.

Fight this all you will, until the time comes when we have the ability to genetically restructure ourselves we weaken our gene pool by allowing unfit members of our species to breed. This isn't personal, this isn't a shot at anyone, it's just the facts.



and the right to life trumps the right to convenience

Life at what fitness level. This isn't a matter of convenience. This is a matter of allowing individuals to have a choice. When two people copulate in hopes of a child they are not signing an agreement to dedicate every waking hour of the rest of their lives to an invalid.
We say that voluntary abortion is fine as long as the child isn't born, yet if the child is born then discovered to be disabled it's a moral sin against humanity to make a conscious decision that it's in the best interest for everyone involved to terminate? That's hypocrisy at it's best.


The question of whether the government should support them is completely separate from whether we should kill them. They are not related at all. I'm not a fan of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but I most certainly do not advocate killing the disabled.

I concede this point. I would like to add however that until the time comes where any individual is held accountable for themselves then these two will be tied at the hip. This doesn't just apply to disability, but also unwillingness.


As I have shown, we have advanced beyond animals if by no other reason than the fact that we have developed the concept of morality. Steven Hawking is a product of that advancement.

You haven't shown that at all. We've developed beyond animals because we have a pose able thumb and the ability to logically deduce. Morality has done nothing but hinder our evolution. You continue to use Hawking, but it doesn't fly. His momentary achievements are not justified by the continuation of a devastating disease. 5000 years from now nobody will know Hawking's name, yet the reverberations of allowing ALS to continue to propagate will be felt 10 fold. I exaggerate here, but the concept is solid.


Huh? Fascism isn't an economic theme... I'm a capitalist, but capitalism is still based on individual freedom - everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, which means that everyone must be provided what they need to grow to adulthood.

Fascism is a form of government that revolves around its economic policies. It was formed as a direct rebellion from both Capitalism and Communism which are both economic manifestos. Mussolini fashioned this concept directly from the concept of Social Darwinism.

Again, I reiterate that we are trying to adopt the government sanctioned economy of Fascism while ignoring the the social aspect of paring the weak. It's a lose lose situation. You have to adopt this concept at whole value or not at all. Capitalism has nothing to do with personal freedom and you should really stop buying into propaganda. Capitalism is based strictly on ones ability to produce wealth through private means. It's a slap in the face to Capitalism to make this assumption that anyone must be provided with anything for any reason. To Each Their Own.

[TheStatutoryApe]

You haven't shown that at all. We've developed beyond animals because we have a pose able thumb and the ability to logically deduce. Morality has done nothing but hinder our evolution. You continue to use Hawking, but it doesn't fly. His momentary achievements are not justified by the continuation of a devastating disease. 5000 years from now nobody will know Hawking's name, yet the reverberations of allowing ALS to continue to propagate will be felt 10 fold. I exaggerate here, but the concept is solid.
Would you like to show us how compassion or morality have hindered evolution? I believe that we have gotten on fairly well in a society that has worked ever harder to apply morals and ethics in an even handed fashion and has become more and more compassionate towards the crippled or disadvantaged. Please show me how we have taken a step back or been held up in our progress.

[superwolf]

Animals have no morals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbskV44lZfc

[a4mula]

Would you like to show us how compassion or morality have hindered evolution? I believe that we have gotten on fairly well in a society that has worked ever harder to apply morals and ethics in an even handed fashion and has become more and more compassionate towards the crippled or disadvantaged. Please show me how we have taken a step back or been held up in our progress.

We're discussing one right now. Allowing compassion to corrupt natural selection.

That's far from the only example however. Since the beginning of humanity we have waged wars based on our morality and prejudices. Morality is merely a method to incite the differences in man. It's a remnant of the herd mentality that was prominent during the hunting/gathering phase of our past. Stick with your own, agree with your own, make rules among your own. Law has since superseded morality as the defining method of dictating order.

Logic or Emotion? Which is more serving to our race? Morality is nothing more than a sword of righteousness that people wield to slay the beliefs they disagree with. Nothing more.

[superwolf]

capitalism is still based on individual freedom - everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed

Not equal opportunity. Some people are born into richness, and in a capitalist world, that means better schools, better health care, more freedom when choosing spare time activities etc.

[superwolf]

we weaken our gene pool by allowing unfit members of our species to breed.

Should only people with the very best genes be allowed to reproduce?

[russ_watters]

Is this the rule, or the exception? It's the exception. Why does that matter? Life today would be quite unbearable if we based everything we did on the exceptions of reality. Too late! You're arguing against the reality of how the morality of western civilization has worked for 200 years. Morality did not triumph over Natural Selection. Was the ALS gene eradicated by this morality because his 3 children weren't affected? No, they just become carriers. ALS is allowed to continue it's propagation. That isn't what natural selection is about - you have it backwards. Natural selection kills animals with flaws in order to not propagate those flaws*. When someone reproduces despite a genetic flaw, that means they beat natural selection.

Fight this all you will, until the time comes when we have the ability to genetically restructure ourselves we weaken our gene pool by allowing unfit members of our species to breed. This isn't personal, this isn't a shot at anyone, it's just the facts. Weaken it how? Unfit how? The whole point of our growth beyond biological evolution is that there are now different factors beyond simple biology that are being selected into our gene pool. Steven Hawking is an example of how sometimes intelligence is selected into the gene pool despite a biological flaw that might otherwise have had more selective pressure. I would argue that the fact that the human race is still progressing is evidence that this trend is not to our detrement, but to our benefit.
This isn't a matter of convenience. What you described in what I quoted is basically a paraphrase of the definition of convenience. Caring for your brother made life more difficult for you. The definition of convenience is making life easier for you - killing him at birth would have made life easier for you. This is a matter of allowing individuals to have a choice. Allowing which individuals to have a choice? All of them or some of them? The concept of individual rights requires that all individuals have the choice. When two people copulate in hopes of a child they are not signing an agreement to dedicate every waking hour of the rest of their lives to an invalid. What they are doing is essentially signing an agreement dedicating every waking hour for the next 18 years to someone who can't care for themselves. That is true for every parent and child. So perhaps, under your system of morality, it would be better to kill them/allow them to die when they reach age 18.... We say that voluntary abortion is fine as long as the child isn't born, yet if the child is born then discovered to be disabled it's a moral sin against humanity to make a conscious decision that it's in the best interest for everyone involved to terminate? That's hypocrisy at it's best. Again, you don't know if it is in the best interest of everyone involved until you ask everyone involved. And you can't ask everyone involved until the baby has reached an age where they are capable of giving an intelligent answer to the question. I concede this point. I would like to add however that until the time comes where any individual is held accountable for themselves then these two will be tied at the hip. This doesn't just apply to disability, but also unwillingness. I'm not sure what you mean by that.... You haven't shown that at all. We've developed beyond animals because we have a pose able thumb and the ability to logically deduce. Lots of animals have opposable thumbs, not a lot can logically deduce....and in any case, didn't you just agree with me with that sentence? Morality has done nothing but hinder our evolution. Evolution is not a predetermined path: different evolutionary pressures cause evolution to proceed differently. Morality has caused us to evolve differently. The word "hinder" does not apply to evolution.

[edit] Just to clarify that a little, evolution does cause continuous improvements, but that doesn't mean that choosing a different path is a hinderence: it is just an improvment along a different path. You continue to use Hawking, but it doesn't fly. His momentary achievements are not justified by the continuation of a devastating disease. 5000 years from now nobody will know Hawking's name, yet the reverberations of allowing ALS to continue to propagate will be felt 10 fold. I exaggerate here, but the concept is solid. You don't exaggerate, actually. Millions may be affected by ALS*. But at the same time, Hawking is, at the very least, a 1 in a million intelligence. Besides the fact that he was actually able to pay for his own care, keeping his genes in the gene pool is worth more than the cost of the occasional ALS case it might cause*. Fascism is a form of government that revolves around its economic policies. It was formed as a direct rebellion from both Capitalism and Communism which are both economic manifestos. Mussolini fashioned this concept directly from the concept of Social Darwinism. Well... researching, there is considerable debate about fascism's place on the political and economic spectrum. So lets just go with history instead of philosophy: the historical reality is that fascism is autocratic and authoritarian - it does not allow individuals to find their own path and succeed or fail on their own merrits. Again, I reiterate that we are trying to adopt the government sanctioned economy of Fascism while ignoring the the social aspect of paring the weak. It's a lose lose situation. I would argue, self contradictory and invalid based on historical reality... You have to adopt this concept at whole value or not at all. Capitalism has nothing to do with personal freedom and you should really stop buying into propaganda. Capitalism is based strictly on ones ability to produce wealth through private means. It isn't propaganda, it is historical reality. The problem with arguing political theory is people get so wrapped up in the theory, they forget that history provides a laboratory for applying and testing those theories. What you are arguing here goes against historical reality of how these theories work in the real world... It's a slap in the face to Capitalism to make this assumption that anyone must be provided with anything for any reason. To Each Their Own. If capitalism were to assume that parents were not required to provide for their children (after all, a child is an expense: a parent would do better economically if they never had kids), that type of capitalistic society would quickly lead to the extinction of the human race. Maybe you would consider what I describe to be an impure form of capitalism (and I said that what I believe is precisely that: not an absolute form), but what I describe is the reality of how capitalism and the principle of individual rights works in the real world.

*ALS is not hereditary, but for the purpose of this discussion, we can assume a hereditary disease. Hemophelia is an example of a hereditary disease that has not been eradicated because we have gone beyond what natural selection would ordinarily allow.

[russ_watters]

We're discussing one right now. Allowing compassion to corrupt natural selection. Human rights are not based on compassion, they are based on the assumption of moral equality. That's far from the only example however. Since the beginning of humanity we have waged wars based on our morality and prejudices. Morality is merely a method to incite the differences in man. It's a remnant of the herd mentality that was prominent during the hunting/gathering phase of our past. Stick with your own, agree with your own, make rules among your own. Law has since superseded morality as the defining method of dictating order. Or, perhaps, morality has evolved....? We've shown that animals exhibit morality and more advanced animals exhibit more advanced morality. Certainly, human morality is imperfect, but as certain as that is the fact that it is advancing. Logic or Emotion? Which is more serving to our race? Morality is nothing more than a sword of righteousness that people wield to slay the beliefs they disagree with. Nothing more. The average life expectancy today is double what it was 100 years ago and the global poverty rate is half what it was 20 years ago. What you so readily dismiss is responsible for by far the most rapid advancement in the human condition the world has ever seen.

[superwolf]

a4mula, are you a fascist? Do you think genes are more important than happiness?

[russ_watters]

Not equal opportunity. Some people are born into richness, and in a capitalist world, that means better schools, better health care, more freedom when choosing spare time activities etc. I'll clarify: what is meant by "equal opportunity" in the US Constitution is equal protection under the law. Yes, the parents you get when you are born - and even the genes you get - are a roll of the dice, but the government has a pretty hard time of correcting that. So the point is that the government creates equality of opportunity in the ways that it can reasonably control.

Your misunderstanding of that issue is a common and disturbing one these days...

[a4mula]

Should only people with the very best genes be allowed to reproduce?

Of course not. Evolution is driven by diversity. That's a far cry from saying that individuals that would not be able to reproduce without the assistance of others should be allowed to however. This isn't a knock on evolution, it's a knock on natural selection.

If natural selection is allowed to take it's course then evolution will systematically improve a race, or destroy it based on fitness and adaptation. When we strip evolution of natural selection then what we're doing is thinning the gene pool with traits that otherwise would have been destroyed. Is there a reason we want these traits destroyed? This seems like a pretty basic axiom. If whatever caused the trait to become unsustainable, then it's a pretty good indication that it's not increasing our fitness.

[a4mula]

I'll clarify: what is meant by "equal opportunity" in the US Constitution is equal protection under the law. Yes, the parents you get when you are born - and even the genes you get - are a roll of the dice, but the government has a pretty hard time of correcting that. So the point is that the government creates equality of opportunity in the ways that it can reasonably control.

Your misunderstanding of that issue is a common and disturbing one these days...

You're misrepresenting Capitalism. Capitalism is strictly an economic policy. If you'd like to converse about our Republic and the the laws that are dictated by our social policy then Capitalism plays no role at all.

[a4mula]

a4mula, are you a fascist? Do you think genes are more important than happiness?

If I were would it make my points any less valid? That's the first question you need to ask and answer.

Belief systems hold no sway on logic. My ideology is irrelevent to the conversation at hand and the points provided within.

And no, I'm not a Fascist. I firmly believe in a Capitalistic Republic. We've corrupted it, but the concept is a solid as any the past has presented.

I believe that each individual must be held accountable for themselves, to the extreme. That means that if any individual is unable to provide for themselves then they should face the consequences of that.

[superwolf]

ALS is not hereditary

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/disability_issues&id=6142746

[superwolf]

I'll clarify: what is meant by "equal opportunity" in the US Constitution is equal protection under the law. Yes, the parents you get when you are born - and even the genes you get - are a roll of the dice, but the government has a pretty hard time of correcting that. So the point is that the government creates equality of opportunity in the ways that it can reasonably control.

You can have that in a communist state as well. Personally, I look at societies with large social class distinctions as a threat to individual freedom. A balance between communism and capitalism - as seen in Northern European countries like Norway and Sweden - is the best IMO. For example, health care and school should be free for everyone.

[a4mula]

Human rights are not based on compassion, they are based on the assumption of moral equality.
There's no such thing. That's such a leap in logic that I really don't even know how to approach it. Moral Equality is an oxymoron. Each man determines his own morals. Each society will have vastly different morals. Human rights are based on the concept that all men are created equal. Yet when a man is born that is undeniably not equal, do we not have an obligation to strip him of these rights, and ultimately of life? That's our obligation, that's our duty. It's expressed over and over in the animal kingdom, yet we allow compassion to corrupt sensibility.


Or, perhaps, morality has evolved....? We've shown that animals exhibit morality and more advanced animals exhibit more advanced morality.


Animals do not exhibit morality. Is it moral to eat your young? Is it moral to leave one of your pack behind that's been injured? Animals exibit survival instincts, something that we left by the wayside a long time ago. We've allowed compassion to dictate what is illogical and unreasonable.


Certainly, human morality is imperfect, but as certain as that is the fact that it is advancing. The average life expectancy today is double what it was 100 years ago and the global poverty rate is half what it was 20 years ago. What you so readily dismiss is responsible for by far the most rapid advancement in the human condition the world has ever seen.

I fail to see how you attribute scientific advancement to morality.

[TheStatutoryApe]

We're discussing one right now. Allowing compassion to corrupt natural selection.
The reasoning here seems circular.

That's far from the only example however. Since the beginning of humanity we have waged wars based on our morality and prejudices. Morality is merely a method to incite the differences in man. It's a remnant of the herd mentality that was prominent during the hunting/gathering phase of our past. Stick with your own, agree with your own, make rules among your own. Law has since superseded morality as the defining method of dictating order.

Logic or Emotion? Which is more serving to our race? Morality is nothing more than a sword of righteousness that people wield to slay the beliefs they disagree with. Nothing more.
Law is based on morality/ethics which can be quite reasonable and logical (I personally prefer the term ethics since the word morality seems to have so much religious baggage attached to it). Other than that point I think Russ has already said what I would say.

Of course not. Evolution is driven by diversity. That's a far cry from saying that individuals that would not be able to reproduce without the assistance of others should be allowed to however. This isn't a knock on evolution, it's a knock on natural selection.

If natural selection is allowed to take it's course then evolution will systematically improve a race, or destroy it based on fitness and adaptation. When we strip evolution of natural selection then what we're doing is thinning the gene pool with traits that otherwise would have been destroyed. Is there a reason we want these traits destroyed? This seems like a pretty basic axiom. If whatever caused the trait to become unsustainable, then it's a pretty good indication that it's not increasing our fitness.
There are not simply those who possess "good genes" and those who possess "bad genes". A person may possess genetic defects aswell as desirable genes. The genes may not even express themselves just as genetic defects may not express themselves either.
Having people around who possess genetic defects helps us learn more about these issues and glean more information that could potentially help fix the problem. You say we haven't gotten to the point of fixing these issues but how do we learn anything about them if we prefer to get rid of the persons who can supply us with the information we need to get there?

[superwolf]

If I were would it make my points any less valid? That's the first question you need to ask and answer.

No, it's off topic. I'm just curious because I've never had a conversed with a fascist before. I don't know too much about it either, other than that it's an authoritarian authology and an iinvective.

that if any individual is unable to provide for themselves then they should face the consequences of that.

That is, no government health care or schools, no minimum wage, etc?

[TheStatutoryApe]

There's no such thing. That's such a leap in logic that I really don't even know how to approach it. Moral Equality is an oxymoron. Each man determines his own morals. Each society will have vastly different morals. Human rights are based on the concept that all men are created equal. Yet when a man is born that is undeniably not equal, do we not have an obligation to strip him of these rights, and ultimately of life? That's our obligation, that's our duty. It's expressed over and over in the animal kingdom, yet we allow compassion to corrupt sensibility.
The value of an individual life is subjective. To call any person (infant or otherwise) "undeniably unequal" is to impose your own values upon others. This is the danger in giving people the right to make life or death decisions about persons based on their perceived inequality. Had we not shed such ideas we would likely still be living with slavery and women would not be allowed to vote.

Animals do not exhibit morality. Is it moral to eat your young? Is it moral to leave one of your pack behind that's been injured? Animals exibit survival instincts, something that we left by the wayside a long time ago. We've allowed compassion to dictate what is illogical and unreasonable.
Humans rape, torture, and murder. Humans obviously do not exibit morality.

[superwolf]

when a man is born that is undeniably not equal, do we not have an obligation to strip him of these rights, and ultimately of life?

No, who has given you this right? God?

That's our obligation, that's our duty.

You cannot disavow equal morality in one sentence and argue with duty ethics in the next.

Animals do not exhibit morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbskV44lZfc

[Math Is Hard]

re: the hippo video (posted twice). The "morality" here is nothing but inference. There could be other explanations for the behavior.

[Huckleberry]

Animals do not exhibit morality. Is it moral to eat your young? Is it moral to leave one of your pack behind that's been injured? Animals exibit survival instincts, something that we left by the wayside a long time ago. We've allowed compassion to dictate what is illogical and unreasonable.

I'm not sure where this is going? It seems all you've done here is choose traits from various species in the animal kingdom that would be reprehensible to modern society. You could just of easily chosen traits from the animal kingdom that are desirable. I don't think it would be very difficult to find behaviours in the animal kingdom that emulate any moral or immoral actions that humans may take. So, besides selection bias, what is your point?

I would say that morals are the survival instincts of a reasoning being that exists within a society. They are what determines right and wrong. If we want to live in isolation like spiders then we should emulate their behaviours and eat our young. If we want to live in packs like wolves we should emulate their behaviours and leave the injured to die. If we want to live in a human civilization we should live like moral human beings. Would we be more reasonable or rational to live like spiders or wolves? That sort of behaviour doesn't seem compatable with the long gestation, slow maturing, extreme vulnerability of a single child. Most other animals with similar traits also exhibit what could be described as compassionate child raising behaviours.

As humans we aren't so different from animals. We just aren't suited as a species to the traits that you would like us to be. You can be sure that if we had no food there would be people who would eat babies. They would live and others would die. If we were nomadic pack hunters and had to follow our food you can be sure that the entire pack isn't going to starve for one individual. That one would die and the fit would live. But we live in a civilization that can grow it's own food and raise animals. We have doctors to keep people healthy. We have technology to make physical tasks easier and to entertain us. We have art and science and philosophy and culture. We have all these things because we are reasoning, rational beings. If survival isn't threatened then there is no need to resort to those extreme 'animalistic' behaviours. We are able to care for the weak and the sick and so we do. When we are in a position where we can't then guess who will go first?.

Whether the glass is half full or half empty, it would be a waste to just pour it out.

[a4mula]

I'm not sure where this is going? It seems all you've done here is choose traits from various species in the animal kingdom that would be reprehensible to modern society. You could just of easily chosen traits from the animal kingdom that are desirable. I don't think it would be very difficult to find behaviours in the animal kingdom that emulate any moral or immoral actions that humans may take. So, besides selection bias, what is your point?

I would say that morals are the survival instincts of a reasoning being that exists within a society. They are what determines right and wrong. If we want to live in isolation like spiders then we should emulate their behaviours and eat our young. If we want to live in packs like wolves we should emulate their behaviours and leave the injured to die. If we want to live in a human civilization we should live like moral human beings. Would we be more reasonable or rational to live like spiders or wolves? That sort of behaviour doesn't seem compatable with the long gestation, slow maturing, extreme vulnerability of a single child. Most other animals with similar traits also exhibit what could be described as compassionate child raising behaviours.

As humans we aren't so different from animals. We just aren't suited as a species to the traits that you would like us to be. You can be sure that if we had no food there would be people who would eat babies. They would live and others would die. If we were nomadic pack hunters and had to follow our food you can be sure that the entire pack isn't going to starve for one individual. That one would die and the fit would live. But we live in a civilization that can grow it's own food and raise animals. We have doctors to keep people healthy. We have technology to make physical tasks easier and to entertain us. We have art and science and philosophy and culture. We have all these things because we are reasoning, rational beings. If survival isn't threatened then there is no need to resort to those extreme 'animalistic' behaviours. We are able to care for the weak and the sick and so we do. When we are in a position where we can't then guess who will go first?.

Whether the glass is half full or half empty, it would be a waste to just pour it out.

This is a discussion where we contemplate the morality of killing infants. I wouldn't say that selecting that aspect of the animal kingdom could be construed as selective biases. We are animals so I'm not really sure why a difference need be made. There are many examples of infanticide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide)within our own species. In each and every case I see no morale contradictions. There is this concept floating around that human life is special. I see nothing that indicates this. We place more value on individual life then we do on the collective good. You go on to state that if 'survivors' aren't threatened then why resort to this behavior. In each example given in the wiki article there were measures of threat. Nobody here is calling for the unneeded killing just for the sake of death. All I'm merely stating is that preserving life, for the sake of life is unjustified.

Morality is merely a basis of relative judgement of actions. It determines only how we view events from our own personal spectrum of biasness. There is nothing universally 'right' or 'wrong' about morality.

[a4mula]

No, who has given you this right? God?
You cannot disavow equal morality in one sentence and argue with duty ethics in the next.


I was going to leave all previous discussion on the table and try to start anew. I did however want to address this one particular question however since it was brought up twice and was grossly misinterpreted.

Unarguably Unequal
Defined: Any person born that would be unable to have a self-sustained life.

Is it not our responsibility to ensure not only the continuation, but also the improvement of our species? When a choice to allow someone that is unarguably unequal to continue their existence we have placed that individual life above that of all others. We have placed it above the continuation and improvement of our species. We have harnessed the energy of others to ensure that said life is allowed.

As far as displacing morals while supporting an ethical view, it has merit. While I'm still not a firm believer in any ethical existence at least ethics are a code of conduct decided by a group of people instead of merely an individual. Closer to Truth in numbers.

[Huckleberry]

This is a discussion where we contemplate the morality of killing infants. I wouldn't say that selecting that aspect of the animal kingdom could be construed as selective biases. We are animals so I'm not really sure why a difference need be made. There are many examples of infanticide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide)within our own species. In each and every case I see no morale contradictions. There is this concept floating around that human life is special. I see nothing that indicates this. We place more value on individual life then we do on the collective good. You go on to state that if 'survivors' aren't threatened then why resort to this behavior. In each example given in the wiki article there were measures of threat. Nobody here is calling for the unneeded killing just for the sake of death. All I'm merely stating is that preserving life, for the sake of life is unjustified.

Morality is merely a basis of relative judgement of actions. It determines only how we view events from our own personal spectrum of biasness. There is nothing universally 'right' or 'wrong' about morality.

What I was saying is that you hand-picked examples that suit your premise. It would be just as easy to hand-pick examples that oppose your premise. In fact, among animals that have similar patterns of birth and growth to humans there are more examples that mirror our own behaviour. You have intentionally selected ones that do not. I believe your appeal to animal behaviour is biased.

Nobody here is calling for the unneeded killing just for the sake of death. All I'm merely stating is that preserving life, for the sake of life is unjustified. I will respectfully disagree. I find life to be a worthy thing to preserve for its own sake whenever possible. I think it is a fundamental principle of civilization.

Yes, what we know of morality is relative. I agree with that. Whether it is founded on universal principles or not is a topic for another thread, one that will get locked quickly.

[a4mula]

In fact, among animals that have similar patterns of birth and growth to humans there are more examples that mirror our own behaviour. You have intentionally selected ones that do not. I believe your appeal to animal behaviour is biased.


I'd love to see the evidence of this fact. It's been shown time and again that even the most advanced mammals (dolphins, primates, pigs) do indeed practice forms of infanticide from direct killing to runt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runt) neglect.

I'm not trying to be derisive here, I'd honestly like some evidence of non-human animals that cater to malformed or diseased offspring. Preferrably I'd like to see evidence that shows a trend of this behavior consistently. Exceptions to rules are just that.

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'd love to see the evidence of this fact. It's been shown time and again that even the most advanced mammals (dolphins, primates, pigs) do indeed practice forms of infanticide from direct killing to runt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runt) neglect.

I'm not trying to be derisive here, I'd honestly like some evidence of non-human animals that cater to malformed or diseased offspring. Preferrably I'd like to see evidence that shows a trend of this behavior consistently. Exceptions to rules are just that.

Humans have practiced, and still do practice, infanticide. This is generally a matter of whether or not the mother is capable of taking care of its children and far more common in communities where the mother is less likely to receive help in taking care of the children. Animals rarely have the advantage of being capable of taking care of offspring with a low survival rate. I've been trying to find information on infanticide among domesticated animals since they do not face the same survival pressures but have not had much success. In a vetrinary article there was only one mention of infanticide in connection to tomcats but this was in regards to the general practice which does not necessarily involved sickness or deformation of the offspring. Most of the articles I have found are regarding general infanticide and few relate specifically to domestic breeds of animals.

At any rate though humans are just as "immoral" as animals when under survival pressures. And I still do not see how taking care of deformed or sick children is detrimental to the evolution of humans.

[a4mula]

At any rate though humans are just as "immoral" as animals when under survival pressures. And I still do not see how taking care of deformed or sick children is detrimental to the evolution of humans.

It's not. Allowing them to breed however is, assuming their issues are genetic in nature.

Again this is just one aspect of the overall detriment that is posed by nurturing those that are incapable of self-sustenance.

This is quite the hard-lined stance. I don't expect many to agree. What I would hope however is that people at least consider the cost at which we as a society and species pay to support anyone that cannot or will not provide for themselves. Once that is considered I ask why? Is it merely for the sake of preserving life, or is it because we've been sold into a belief of moral wrongdoing? If it's the latter then I believe we need to step back and reaccess the situation.

[mheslep]

Humans have practiced, and still do practice, infanticide...I hope 'committed' is the right word there, not practiced. At least in this society infanticide is not acceptable, it is murder. I thought that statement would be pedantic, but after reading this thread so far, maybe not.

[Focus]

It's not. Allowing them to breed however is, assuming their issues are genetic in nature.

Really? So now we have 'good' and 'bad' genes eh? What happens if those very genes enable that person to have an advantage e.g. he looses the use of his legs but his intelligence is far above the normal human. Do we not allow this person to breed? How do you even know that their condition will be dominant?

[russ_watters]

You're misrepresenting Capitalism. Capitalism is strictly an economic policy. If you'd like to converse about our Republic and the the laws that are dictated by our social policy then Capitalism plays no role at all. I wasn't talking about capitalism in that quote. There's no such thing. That's such a leap in logic that I really don't even know how to approach it. Moral Equality is an oxymoron. Each man determines his own morals. Each society will have vastly different morals. Human rights are based on the concept that all men are created equal. Ironic, because I don't know how to respond to that! What you describe is just plain historically wrong. It is historical fact that the morality that we use is based on what I said it is! What you describe is complete moral relativism and quite obviously is impossible since if it were applied as you suggest, we could have no laws.

You said earlier that law has superceded morality. That's incorrect too: law is based on morality. That's also straightforward historical fact. These ideas you have, you are just pulling them out of the air - they have little basis in reality. Yet when a man is born that is undeniably not equal, do we not have an obligation to strip him of these rights, and ultimately of life? That's our obligation, that's our duty. It's expressed over and over in the animal kingdom, yet we allow compassion to corrupt sensibility. I don't know of any mammals that act as you describe, but even if they did, it wouldn't matter: morality is a human construct and our morality is beyond that of (stricter than) animals. Some animals behave in ways that fit our morality and though it probably has a rational basis, they have never been able to ask the question and develop the morality. Animals do not exhibit morality. Is it moral to eat your young? Is it moral to leave one of your pack behind that's been injured? Those are survival instincts that may or may not be moral depending on the situation. Certainly, if caring for a weaker member of a group could endanger the rest of the group, it is morally correct to abandon that member of the group.
Animals exibit survival instincts, something that we left by the wayside a long time ago. Those survival instincts often follow a similar logic as our morality (such as in the example I just gave). I submit that that is not a coincidence. We've allowed compassion to dictate what is illogical and unreasonable. That's an illogical/self-contradictory thing to say! Logic should be devoid of emotion, essentially by definition. Or is that what you are trying to say? If it is, it is still wrong. I fail to see how you attribute scientific advancement to morality. I was showing the result - the correlation, not the actual connection, but the connections are blindingly simple. The morality of people and their governments practiced in many places was openly hostile to freedom and education. Forced slavery and subjegation were commonplace. These societies had lower standards of living precisely because the laws of the time (the morality) enforced a lower standard of living on the poor. This enforced lower standard of living included enforced ignorance, which had the secondary effect of helping to prevent scientific advancement.

[russ_watters]

I'd love to see the evidence of this fact. It's been shown time and again that even the most advanced mammals (dolphins, primates, pigs) do indeed practice forms of infanticide from direct killing to runt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runt) neglect. There is a big difference between direct killing and runt neglect. Note, in particular, that "runt neglect" is usually (always?) associated with a litter of animals. More intelligent/higher mammals tend to only have one offspring and I suspect there is a causal relationship between that fact and the fact that development in higher mammals requires much more direct parental care.

Note also that you don't draw a distinction between reasons for infanticide. Afaik, more advanced animals that practice infanticide don't do it to improve the makeup of their family. It is done mostly by males for sexual selection reasons: to ensure that it is their offspring who survive. That goes along with rape and is a trait now removed from our morality. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/infant.html

[russ_watters]

Unarguably Unequal
Defined: Any person born that would be unable to have a self-sustained life. Noted... Is it not our responsibility to ensure not only the continuation, but also the improvement of our species? No individual has either responsibility - why would they? When a choice to allow someone that is unarguably unequal to continue their existence we have placed that individual life above that of all others. Certainly not - to keep a disabled person alive does not kill anyone else. What we do is place that individual life above the financial freedom of everyone else.
We have placed it above the continuation and improvement of our species. We have harnessed the energy of others to ensure that said life is allowed. Could you show me somewhere in any government document where it says that people have those responsibilities?

[mheslep]

The question for me upon consideration of a proposed society that would advocate infanticide or any other -cide derived from an overdose of Nietzsche, is not whether the effect on the gene pool of future generations is worthwhile, but rather why would such a society/species be worth preserving? In such a case give it back to the reptiles I say, they're equally amoral.

[mheslep]

Unarguably Unequal
Defined: Any person born that would be unable to have a self-sustained life....1) No infant or toddler can self-sustain life, and if you mean upon achieving a later age, then 2) the planet can only support a population a small fraction of its current size consisting of people acting utterly self-sufficiently. At the current world population the vast majority of us survive and thrive only by depending on one another in some form.

[Huckleberry]

I'd love to see the evidence of this fact. It's been shown time and again that even the most advanced mammals (dolphins, primates, pigs) do indeed practice forms of infanticide from direct killing to runt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runt) neglect.

I'm not trying to be derisive here, I'd honestly like some evidence of non-human animals that cater to malformed or diseased offspring. Preferrably I'd like to see evidence that shows a trend of this behavior consistently. Exceptions to rules are just that.

I'm not saying humans don't commit infanticide. I'm saying humans have different social structure, biology and survival pressures. It shapes our evolution in ways that are different than other animals. If we were placed in a similar situation to those animals you would see many of the same behaviours. Your argument for infanticide suggests that we live like animals. What you are really after is the absence of morals. I think I understand why you would have such an opinion, but it isn't based on rational thought or logic.

Based on your examples this would be an equally acceptable way for humans to live. A woman gets a new boyfriend and he comes over to kill all her offspring. After mating she should chew his head off and give birth to a litter of babies. It's certainly possible for us to arrange that, but I don't think it's beneficial to our evolution. For my next trick I'm going to make an oak tree grow apples because it's more natural for the oak tree, and I'm hungry.

You see compassion as a weakness. I see it as a strength. More accurately, because a person has the ability to be compassionate to others it means they can provide more than they require for thier own survival, or the survival of the many is more important than the individual. I don't believe compassion is a weakness.

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's not. Allowing them to breed however is, assuming their issues are genetic in nature.

Again this is just one aspect of the overall detriment that is posed by nurturing those that are incapable of self-sustenance.

This is quite the hard-lined stance. I don't expect many to agree. What I would hope however is that people at least consider the cost at which we as a society and species pay to support anyone that cannot or will not provide for themselves. Once that is considered I ask why? Is it merely for the sake of preserving life, or is it because we've been sold into a belief of moral wrongdoing? If it's the latter then I believe we need to step back and reaccess the situation.
What do you believe is the likelihood that any person with a severe genetic debilitation, such that they take from society with out direct contribution, is going to reproduce? Few such people survive childhood and even fewer still are capable of taking part in society to such a degree that they are likely to reproduce. And even if they do their children could easily turn out perfectly normal and capable of contributing to society. Do you have any stats that could show us just how much these genes are polluting the pool? Since people are more likely to keep children that are disabled do you think maybe that having one such child will be enough for them and they will be less likely to have more? Generally in human and animal groupings the deformed and sick children would be killed and then the parents would have yet more children. This would seem more likely to perpetuate the defective genes.

I would also echo Huck's opinion that compassion can be a strength. The more people are capable of caring for others the stronger our community will be. I think its fairly obvious that one of our primary strengths as a species is our capacity to form ever larger and stronger communities. This is why I asked if you could point out where you see that these tings have hindered human evolution, that is actual real world examples with statistics and such that show we have slowed or been hindered in our progress, because you really need to prove that the possible disadvantages out weigh the possible advantages. Simply asserting it as a disadvantage is not enough.

I hope 'committed' is the right word there, not practiced. At least in this society infanticide is not acceptable, it is murder. I thought that statement would be pedantic, but after reading this thread so far, maybe not.

I used the term to indicate an action that is taken with regularity among a group or groups. To use the word "commit" may make the actions seem as isolated incidents as opposed to something that is commonly done. While infanticide may not be "practiced" (but rather "commited") here in the US or other similar countries there are those places where it would be more aptly described as a "practice".

[BWV]

empathy and compassion are neccessary attributes for human society. People that lack these attributes are called sociopaths and they impose far greater costs on society than those unable to care for themselves. Any rationally designed euthanasia program would first start with them. Moreover people who advocate murdering disabled people based upon some sense of duty to natural selection are not only sociopaths but plain stupid and should be moved to the front of the line

[seycyrus]

From a societal perspective.

In a program of enforced infanticide one must consider the possibility that potentially beneficial genetic traits will be culled from the gene pool.

The definition of a genetic advantage might change as our species evolves.