Germans B+ Students of History

Germans have learned some lessons from their traumatic history. They have looked on in horror as the Dutch have legalized and normalized euthanasia.

Most Germans also do not like research on humans at any stage. Dr. Mengele haunts their nightmares.

Kath.net reports:

“More than half (56.3 percent) of the citizens of the Federal Republic wants science to concentrate exclusively on research with adult stem cells. Two thirds (66.5 percent) think it “just” that in Germany that “no human embryos can be produced and destroyed for research purposes.”

Women were much more opposed than men were to research that harmed human embryos. Young people were also heavily pro-life.

I give the Germans only a B+ because they still allow abortion, although under far more restrictions than the United States (the US has essentially none).

All German women who seek an abortion must undergo counseling and cannot have an abortion unless they obtain a certificate form a counseling center. This policy caused a ruckus because Catholic counseling centers, which were sincerely trying to dissuade women from abortion, then issued these certificates whose only use was to obtain an abortion. The women intended to have an abortion. Perhaps they had doubts and went to a Catholic counseling center, knowing they would hear arguments against abortion. But the only reason a woman would want a certificate after counseling was to get an abortion.

The Vatican decided that issuing such certificates was cooperation in abortion. Some German bishops insisted that the counseling centers were saving lives. The Vatican responded that it was wrong to do evil (issuing certificates whose only purpose was to fulfill condition the state mandated to obtain an abortion) so that good might be done. One German bishop remained adamant, and the Vatican removed the counseling centers in his diocese from his jurisdiction.

Would it have been right to work in the Final Solution, feeding Jews into the murder machine, in an attempt to save some Jews? Can one do evil so that good may come of it? Paul answered that question long ago.

Comments

[Steve Nicoloso]

Would it have been right to work in the Final Solution, feeding Jews into the murder machine, in an attempt to save some Jews? Can one do evil so that good may come of it? Paul answered that question long ago.

If not Paul, then St. Thomas Aquinas. I've heard most European countries have more restrictive abortion laws (and lower incidences of abortion) than the U.S. Are American's just that much stupider, i.e., more capable of willful denial of obvious facts?!?!!

So... let me ask this here of this august group of commentators:

Ought Christian parents refuse, and be allowed by the state to refuse lifesaving treatment for their children, if the therapy was obtained in such manner that another human being was killed?

And example of what I mean here is, of course, embryonic stem cell therapies, which in spite of the fact that they do not exist yet, may soon. If so, should Jehovah's Witnesses receive the same regard from the law and be allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children even if it the only reasonable lifesaving option?

[GL]

Ought Christian parents refuse, and be allowed by the state to refuse lifesaving treatment for their children, if the therapy was obtained in such manner that another human being was killed?

That is a question that bothers me a great deal. My youngest daughter has a genetic disorder. My wife and I are in agreement that we would never allow her to recieve medical treatment which resulted in the death of another human (including an embryo), but might we one day face a situation when some effective treatment (whether life saving or not) is developed using ESCs and be drug into court to force us to have her treated against our convictions?

For now, it is only a hypothetical question as no effective therapies exist using ESCs, but if such therapies are developed which could help our daughter, we may face a problem. I pray (and I mean this will all sincerity) that God does not allow any such therapies to be discovered. I, of course, would welcome any such therapies using adult stem cells.

[GL]

If so, should Jehovah's Witnesses receive the same regard from the law and be allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children even if it the only reasonable lifesaving option?

Yes.

[coco]

GL,

I think you need have no fear of ESCs being the cause of a cure for your daughter (whom may God bless with such speedily).

See:

What We Know About Embryonic Stem Cells

http://firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5420

http://firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5420

[coco]

If, however, a treatment was discovered by chance using ESCs and subsequent therapy used the knowledge but didn't involve immoral means, you should proceed in all good conscience.

I argue this based on Jenner's experiment on the young lad whom he infected with small pox, having first exposed him to cowpox. If I understand the history correctly, it was a gravely immoral thing to do. (Stuart?)

[Bobby Winters]

This is the letter I sent to the editor of Scientific American Digital about this issue.

[Gene Godbold]

Oooh Bobby,
Nice rejoinder.

[coco]

Any chance you're allowed to share the full text?

[Ethan Cordray]

That is good, Bobby. Way to get at the self-centeredness that seems to dominate that side of the debate.

[Bobby Winters]

This is what I sent them:

Editors:
The June 2004 issue of ¬Scientific American featured a pair of articles on embryonic stem cell research.

The editorial entitled "Stem Cells: A Way Forward" dealt with the subject of embryonic stem cell research. In telegraphic terms, what the article said is that scientists in the US are laboring under restrictions their counterparts in other countries are not, consequently, we in the US are in danger of other countries getting ahead of us in this area and consequently of losing billions in revenue. This danger could be eliminated, the editorial goes on to say, if the US adopted a set of ethical standards that would allow American scientists to go ahead and do what they believe they must in order to pursue their research in a more evenly yoked manner.

I am disturbed by this article on more than one account, but chiefly because it ignores completely the most damning objection to embryonic stem cell research, which is that an embryo is a human being. From this point of view, what the editorial states is that we could make a lot of money if we were allowed to do unfettered experiments on human beings.

I won't deny that lack of human testing complicates matters. Cancer researchers, for instance, are not allowed to induce cancer in human subjects in order to study therapies in a controlled way and have had to rely on experiments done on mice. There is no doubt constraints such as this have held back research efforts by years, perhaps decades, yet there is no an outcry from the scientific community for these constraints to be removed because we can more easily recognize our fellow members of homo sapiens when they have grown beyond a certain developmental stage. Simple humanity prevents the desire to perform life-depriving experiments on our fellow man.

This is not an absolute, however, as there were scientists who, not all that long ago or all that far away, performed experiments on those they considered untermenschen. Indeed, there were those within our own country who allowed syphilis to go untreated among some black, illiterate sharecroppers just in order to see what would happen.

It is somehow easier to dehumanize those who are in someway different than one's self. The African Americans who were subjects of the Tuskegee Experiment were of a different skin color than most of the scientists studying them, those who were studied by the Nazis in the concentration camp were of a different ethnic heritage, and those who the embryonic stem cell researchers wish to study are from a different developmental stage.

The editorial was a companion to a scientific article in the same issue by Robert Lanza and Nadia Rosenthal which is entitled "The Stem Cell Challenge." This details many of technical issues that are confronted in embryonic stem cell research, and in a sidebar to this article, Christine Soares echoes of the editorial and details the political obstacles to progress. She relates the story of Douglas A. Melton, a scientist whose two children have type-1 diabetes, a disease for which stem cell research promises a cure. Melton has created 17 new embryonic stem cell lines and used private funds to do so, thereby doing an end-run around government regulations.

This raises a question that some have asked me when I voice my opposition to using embryos for research, "What if one of your children could be helped by this? Wouldn't you want to be able to use an embryo then?"

The answer to this is much simpler than those who ask the question seem do realize. Indeed, it is "Yes," but the full answer is perhaps more than my interrogators bargain for. To save the life of one of my children, I would have no problem with the dismembering of unwilling adults. Indeed, if one of my children needed a heart, I wouldn't mind pulling one beating from someone's unwilling chest, but one of the purposes of the law is to tame such emotional reactions.

The question is not the depth of emotion or the worth of the cure but rather the value of human life. One human should not, without his or her consent, be destroyed for the use of another.

The editorial is honest enough to put the real face on what is behind the push for embryonic stem cell research, and that face is on a green, rectangular piece of paper. There is money to be made because no one wants to die. However, let us not lose sight of the fact that eventually we all will die regardless of the crimes science commits in service of trying to delay that inevitable end.

[Bill R]

Oh Bobby, we love ya! TWO gold stars!! I at least salute Scientific American for publishing this.

[GL]

Kudos, Bobby!

[Bobby Winters]

Thanks, guys.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Wonderful, Bobby. I've forwarded that letter to several friends, and it may end up on my blog as well. I love the third to last paragraph.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>without his or her consent<<<

Even with consent.

[Bobby Winters]

Agreed.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Stuart... Jesus?

[dirk van glabeke]

although this to me is not a question since embryo's are not human beings

let me put the question in a different form:

suppose a train came uncontrolled riding through and it would kill 5 people. You are in the position of stopping it by throwing a switch. Would you do it?
Of course.
Suppose that in throwing the switch, the train would be diverted to another track thereby killing 1 person. What would you do?

[Bobby Winters]

Suppose I could save those 5 persons by just coming into your bedroom and killing YOU.

[dirk van glabeke]

your reaction shows your frustration in being put in a situation for which you seemingly have no simple answer

something about attacking the messenger...

you can do better than that

[Bobby Winters]

No, if I am frustrated it is with talking to a brick wall. Say you have a man who needs a heart, one who needs a kidney, one who needs a liver, etc. Then you have another guy who has all those things. Do we kill him so the other five can live. This is more to the point than the random train question you tossed out. It just makes it more interested if we pretend its you, because that is the way it is for whoever it's done for. Being vivisected is a rather personsal thing to the one undergoing it.

You can talk about the greatest good for the greatest number, but at the end of it all we are all dead. What crimes against God, Nature and man are you willing to see committed so that you can hold on to your life a little bit longer?

[David Gray]

>since embryo's are not human beings

Really? What are they then, Russian Wolfhounds?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart... Jesus?<<<

The Son of God is exempt. Moreover, nobody DEMANDED or ASKED the Son of God to lay down his life for the life of the world--his was a purely voluntary act not done at the behest of anyone.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>although this to me is not a question since embryo's are not human beings<<<

Objective proof of this statement, if you please. How do you KNOW? Or are you just venting gas--again?

[Bobby Winters]

>>>Really? What are they then, Russian Wolfhounds?<<<

In reading his post, I missed the 'not.' My favorite way of asking David's question is "Are they f---ing wolverines?" This is just as good.

[GL]

although this to me is not a question since embryo's are not human beings

Dirk,

This is why I have given up trying to discuss this with you. It is an objective, undeniable fact, that a human embryo is a human. That you deny this shows that you refuse to operate on the objective evidence. Hence, it is a waste of time to try to reason with you.

Again, may God bless you by opening your eyes.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"Are they f---ing wolverines?" <<<

Better shoot 'em with a flippin' twelve guage, then. Unless you want to show off your nunchuk and bowstaff fighting skills.

[GL]

By the way, Dirk, this is not a mere hypothetical to me. What if a treatment for my daughter is developed which requires the use of ESCs? Should my wife and I be coerced, against our convictions, to have her treated?

[Judy Warner]

Dirk,

Were you excited by the news that amniotic fluid contains stem cells which might be just as good as embryonic stem cells? Or were you a little bit disappointed? Or were you determined that the news should make no difference to ESC research? Or did you think the scientists who announced it were tools of the fascist right?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Stuart... the Father?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart... the Father?<<<

This gets into dicey Trinitarian theology. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases within one shared essence. Within the Trinity, there is hierarchy without subordination: all three are equally God, and no one is inferior to the others. Rather, each hypostasis has its own unique charism and place. The Father is Archos Anarche, the uncreated origin; the Son is the Divine Logos through whom all things are made; the Holy Spirit is the Lord and giver of life. Each is in perfect accord with the others because the Trinity is perfect communion. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that the Father asks or commands the Son to surrender himself for the life of the world. Rather, knowing the Father's mind perfectly, and being in perfect accord with it, the Logos knows what must be done and does it, though in his incarnate Person, with both a human and a divine hypostasis, Jesus suffers from the pangs of doubt and fear that affect all humans--yet remains in complete accord with the Father's will nonetheless.

[dirk van glabeke]

all kind of evase tactics but in the end

no answer

[Judy Warner]

What keeps you coming here, Dirk?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>all kind of evase tactics but in the end

no answer<<<

Precisely, Dirk. Why no answer to the simple question, "How do you KNOW that an embryo is NOT a human being?" Since you are in the position of advocating the destruction of embryos for the purposes of research and therapy, the onus would seem to be on you to provide assurances that in so doing, one does not kill a human being.

But on your part, silence and evasion.

So, answer.

[dirk van glabeke]

the discussion on embryo's I had with quite a few of you on another thread. So for anwers reread that thread.
GL, 'is a human' is not the same as 'is human', see the other thread

I could try to answer each of the evasions but that would just detract from the question posed. Which is probably the point of these evasions.

Judy, well the sweet musings of Stuart of course, who was so burned on trying to prove his right that he kept haunting me on my private e-mail adress.

Stuart, you can rant all you want, it just shows that you don't want to answer my simple question.

'Or are you just venting gas--again?'
No Stuart, I leave that speciality to you. You do it so well.

[dirk van glabeke]

>>>What keeps you coming here, Dirk?<<<

the above answer to your question was just a joke, although the part about Stuart was true.
Your question seems to suppose that it is somehow strange that I return. Which
in itself does not give a positive view on the way some on this forum treated me.

[GL]

suppose a train came uncontrolled riding through and it would kill 5 people. You are in the position of stopping it by throwing a switch. Would you do it?
Of course.
Suppose that in throwing the switch, the train would be diverted to another track thereby killing 1 person. What would you do?

Actually, here is the way I have heard this hypothetically (and one much more close to what we are talking about here). The switchman sees a passenger train coming with 150 people on board. He then notices his own son is on the tracks. He can switch the train, but it will cause it to derail and kill the 150 people on board, or he can let it proceed, saving those 150, but killing his son. Which should he do?

Every instinct in his soul yells for him to switch the train. Doing so, however, would be murder and he would be prosecuted for doing so and rightfully condemned.

Applying this analogy: the switchman is the father of a child who could be treated with ESCs. The child is the boy on the track. The 150 passengers are the embryonic humans killed to make the treatment possible.

Dirk,

I have answered your question. Now answer mine: should I be compelled to have my daughter treated via embryonic stem cells if an effective treatment were developed even though my wife and I believe (recognize) that human embryos are humans with just as much a right to live as our daughter? It is all well and good when you speak in hypotheticals, but your hypos have real world applications. (I would note that my daughter's condition is not terminal (no more so than the human fate in general). My wife and I have friends, however, who have a 7-year-old son whose condition is terminal and who might well benefit from some of the breakthroughs promised (but to date not delivered) by proponents of ESC research. I have spoken to the father, who is a doctor, and he is wavering on his opposition to ESC. Folks like you are only too ready to seize on his understandable weakness to exploit it.)

[David Gray]

>'is a human' is not the same as 'is human'

Sophistry. Not particularly good sophistry but still sophistry.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Suppose that in throwing the switch, the train would be diverted to another track thereby killing 1 person. What would you do?<<

If I were a utilitarian? I'd go for the five. Who cares about people? It'd probably be more entertaining.

If, on the other hand, I were a Christian, I would do the right thing and throw the switch, after of course yelling at all concerned to get out of the way, and doing anything else I could think of to avert all loss of life. While I was throwing it, I would contemplate how strange and artificial my situation was, and how it bore no resemblance to the ethical question of embryonic stem cell research.

Or perhaps, Dirk, here's a question of the same sort: If your had to throw a switch to kill either one fully grown human or five embryos, what would you do? Or maybe, one fully grown human or five children? One rich person or five poor people? One beautiful person or five ugly ones? One person you liked or five of your enemies?

We can devise any number of reasons not to recognize the humanity of those we wish to victimize. Once we start judging others by utility and appearance rather than their inherent value, all kinds of opportunities are opened to us to exploit them. An embryo does not look like me. Neither, after a fashion, does an African, or a Jew, or a woman. An embryo contributes nothing directly to my physical well-being. Neither do the elderly, or the disabled, or the very poor. An embryo does not participate actively in my society. And neither do the mentally ill, or criminals, or any foreigners. For none of these reasons can a person be deemed inhuman and consigned to death merely to benefit others.

Yet in the case of embryos, we are still willing to dispose of them like property, just as we once did all these other sorts of people. Tell me, how is it liberal to withhold human rights from some in the mere hope that some others' lives might be made easier and longer?

What is the difference between Elizabeth Bathory, who bathed in the blood of virgins to sustain her youth, and those who inject themselves with embryonic stem cells to cure their diseases? Is it merely that one treatment didn't work, and the other might?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If I were a utilitarian? I'd go for the five. Who cares about people? It'd probably be more entertaining.<<<

It's a poor analogy in any case (Dirk specializes in false analogies). The oncoming train is not a deliberate action, it is a phenomenon to which the switchman must respond within the options open to him. His duty as a switchman is to ensure the safety of the train, its passengers and crew, and any innocent bystanders. His duty therefore determines that he must take the choice that does the least harm. It is, of course, utilitarian, but as the situation is not of the switchman's making or choosing, he must play the hand he was dealt.

On the other hand, embryonic stem cell research is something deliberate. The stem cell researcher is not the switchman, he's the engineer on the train, and it is his actions that make the train go out of control. Just as an engineer who exceeds posted speed limits or ignores signals is liable for any deaths or injuries caused by his train, whether one or five, so the stem cell researcher is responsible for the deaths of the human beings he CHOOSES to expend like so much disposable tissue/

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>No Stuart, I leave that speciality to you. You do it so well.<<<

Answer my question, sniveling Flemming. They don't call Belgium and the Netherlans the Low Countries for nothing. It refers not only to their proximity to sea level, but also their moral obtuseness.

[Judy Warner]

The reason I ask why you keep coming back, Dirk, is that I can't imagine what you get out of it. At first I thought you might be honestly curious about what people different from you think about important things. But now it seems that you just like being provocative. But you keep saying the same things and getting into the same arguments. I can only conclude that you like arguing, but everyone you know thinks the same as you, so you don't have anyone to get into an argument with except strangers in the blogosphere. In that case you ought to work up some new things to say.

[Bob Gardner]

"All German women who seek an abortion must undergo counseling and cannot have an abortion unless they obtain a certificate form a counseling center. This policy caused a ruckus because Catholic counseling centers, which were sincerely trying to dissuade women from abortion, then issued these certificates whose only use was to obtain an abortion. The women intended to have an abortion. Perhaps they had doubts and went to a Catholic counseling center, knowing they would hear arguments against abortion. But the only reason a woman would want a certificate after counseling was to get an abortion."

Not being an expert in Dutch law, I wonder how this works. They way I read it is if a pregnant woman comes to your counciling center, then decides to get an abortion you must giver her a certificate that will enable her to obtain the abortion. What if the center is up front about not giving these 'death certificates?' Could they be except from the law? Apparantly not. I think they law should be changed to enable this, that would solve the dilemia nicely. For the woman who were sincerely looking for the opposite view they could recieve it, knowing at the end they wouldn't get the certificate, and could go somewhere else.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Not being an expert in Dutch law, I wonder how this works. <<<

Why would a country that has legalized euthenasia for the elderly and infants cavil at abortion? Why would a country that engages in non-consensual euthenasia of fully rational adults care one way or the other about unborn children?

[Gene Godbold]

Guys,
Even if he is being obtuse and/or sophistical, there isn't any reason to comment on Dirk's ability to generate gas.

Dirk,
Speaking as a scientist who wrote his dissertation in the discipline of cell biology, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that embryonic stem cells are, in fact, human. In the natural course of events (that is, if they aren't dismembered by some enterprising, capitalist ghoul), these cells would continue to grow and develop on their way to being one or more adult human beings. But before adulthood is reached, the organism passes through adolescence. And before adolescence, childhood. And before childhood, infancy. And so on back until the person is a single cell. It is an unbroken continuum. There isn't a spot at which a scientist can point to (after conception) and say: "Hey, this organism is now human and it wasn't three minutes/hours/days ago!"

I was once a single cell, but it was still me (all I was, at that point). One day I'll be a lot older, but I'll still be human. I've been larger. I've been smaller, but I've been a human being the whole time. I've had the same DNA (with some epigenetic modifications, sure). I've been living a biological program. If anyone had ever interrupted that developmental program at any point, they would have killed me not just some blob of tissue or amalgamation of organs.

My wife has our eighth child inside of her. He is a baby, even though he is currently smaller than a pinto bean. Our wishes don't make him a baby, science reveals him to be a distinct human organism with his own life. Sure, he needs the support of his mother's womb. Later on, he'll need the support of his daddy's income and his mother's tender nurture. But being dependent doesn't qualify his existence. We're all dependent our entire life, it's only the extent of the dependence that varies.

Conception is the point at which the instruction set is completed (the DNA is finished recombining and crossing over) and the biological program started for each new organism. This is what science tells us: Distinct, individual life begins at conception.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> In the natural course of events (that is, if they aren't dismembered by some enterprising, capitalist ghoul)<<<

Actually, most of them are enterprising socialist ghouls, witness their desire to suck at the public teat.

[Gene Godbold]

Stuart, I'm thinking of Lanza, here. But sure, there are socialist ghouls, too, who want me and you to pay for them to dismember the smallest of us.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But sure, there are socialist ghouls, too, who want me and you to pay for them to dismember the smallest of us.<<<

I'm sure that in China they're already giving it a stab. They don't flinch at using living adult humans as spare parts bins, so why should a "clump of cells" bother them?

[Gene Godbold]

Too bad the cell biology of embryonic stem cells is just a little too difficult to figure out right now. The problem is that you can't tame the darn things and not have them go all neoplastic on you.
:-)

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>Suppose that in throwing the switch, the train would be diverted to another track thereby killing 1 person. What would you do?<<

>>>I would do the right thing and throw the switch<<<

now if there would be 5 persons, each with one different organ functioning badly and in the
other room you would have one healthy person. Would you kill the healthy person to use his organs so the other 5 could be saved?
Why? Does this situation differ from the first?

Stuart,
>>>His duty therefore determines <<<
don't you believe in free will anymore? He has a choice to perform his duty or not. A doctor could also claim that it is his duty to save by his reasearch the many lives of the suffering.

Gene,
>>>Speaking as a scientist who wrote his dissertation in the discipline of cell biology, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that embryonic stem cells are, in fact, human<<<
human yes, not a human
and as you seem to use an argument from authority:
you are probably aware that many scientists in your field see things different. And not because of financial gains.

Bob,

>>>Not being an expert in Dutch law<<<
I am not Dutch.

Stuart,

>>>Answer my question, sniveling Flemming. They don't call Belgium and the Netherlans the Low Countries for nothing. It refers not only to their proximity to sea level, but also their moral obtuseness<<<

as someone with your historic knowledge should know, the Dutch have a religious moral background in protestantism, while for the Belgians it's katholicism. So as far as these centuries of different religious influence would amount to something it would be somewhat different, wouldn't it?

more reactions later

and please try to answer the question

[GL]

Dirk,

Where is the answer to my question? I answered yours.

[Gene Godbold]

Dirk,
Sure, not all scientists agree with me. But when they don't, they stop talking about the science and revert to philosophy (utilitarianism). I refuse to grant their premises and when I try to steer them back to a focus on the scientific aspects, they just dig in their heels. It's obviously not a matter of science, but philosophy.

Most scientists have no (zero) training in either ethics or philosophy. Having attended seminary, I have some of both. It isn't the science that we disagree on.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>now if there would be 5 persons, each with one different organ functioning badly and in the
other room you would have one healthy person. Would you kill the healthy person to use his organs so the other 5 could be saved?<<

Okay Dirk, if you say so, sure I would use his organs. Except for his liver. That I would cook up with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. If his parts can be employed to help others medically, why not employ them to help myself, nutritionally?

[Gene Godbold]

Eeew, Ethan. That was a nasty movie. My wife still has nightmares about it.

[Ethan Cordray]

Remember how Buffalo Bill dehumanizes his victims by referring to them as "it" and only using the third person? "It eats its food, or else it gets the hose again." Almost as if they were merely lumps of flesh, clumps of cells that he could dispose of as he saw fit. In his case, by making a suit from their skin.

Nasty, indeed. But such things happen every day in the antiseptic chambers of abortion clinics and fertility labs.

Horror films and stories show us the sins that our culture refuses to acknowledge.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Would you kill the healthy person to use his organs so the other 5 could be saved?<<<

Ethan doesn't sound like a Chinese name, but who knows? Was the healthy person a member of Falun Gong, by any chance? Were the sick people all high-ranking Communist party members, or just very wealthy Europeans?

[Ethan Cordray]

And since the healthy guy isn't going to be needing his organs anymore, no sense letting the rest go to waste. I hear fat makes good candles, and a skull can be a real coversation starter as a candy dish. I've seen Nazi lampshades made of skin, so that's useful too. The rest, I suppose, could be used for "science," or else sent down to the Soylent Green factory.

The scientists tell us that the earth is overpopulated and running low on resources. Why not kill two birds with one stone? It's really a very modest proposal.

And come on, Stuart. You know such crude injustices never occur in areas such as this. Everything is always rationally arranged to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. When has it ever gone wrong? Haven't you studied your history?

[dirk van glabeke]

you can make fun of it but the question illustrates a serious point

but all in good time

[Ethan Cordray]

Dirk, I don't personally find Silence of the Lambs "fun," any more than Gene's wife does. I do, however, see the need to confront our nightmares on film and on the page in order to wake ourselves to the nightmares that we are living with in our society.

Why are Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill plausible? What human urges do they represent? Where do we see those same urges elsewhere, masked in the kindly expression of medicine? What sharp teeth lurk behind the surgical mask?

The examples Stuart and I refer to are not imaginary. They have happened, and are happening.

If the kind face of gentle reason won't persuade you, then the bitter sneer of satire will have its chance. And if satire fails, then hideous horror will take its turn. I pray that neither you nor our society will be so numb as to ignore this ghastly final angel.

[dirk van glabeke]

Ethan,

the examples you give are certified lunatics.
If you don't recognize the boundary between sane and insane, then there is not much hope for you.
and certainly not a rational discussion.

But this has nothing to do with my question, which was
directed to the forummembers.

By the way, your questions in your post about the elderly, the poor, the disabled,... shows that you or didn't read my posts on the other thread or didn't understand them. There is no way you could deduce from my posts an unequal treatment for those people.

[dirk van glabeke]

some have stated that the first thought experiment lacked a sense of realism. But doctors on the battlefield can face similar situations when they have to choose between saving one or five wounded soldiers.

the second thought experiment is meant to make one think about what is in essence the difference between the two situations.

It's up to you to let your mind work.

I think the difficulty some of you have with these experiments is that you don't have a straightforward answer to them based on the Bible. I don't say it's not possible but it's not straightforward.

[dirk van glabeke]

Stuart,

the way in which 'duty' in your post seems to negate free will, reminded me of similar situations. After the WOII a number of Germans defended their terrible actions by stating 'befehl ist befehl'. They took the same view as you do: duty negates free choice.

Strange bedfellows you have.

[GL]

Dirk,

Apparently you are ignoring my question, so let me put it in a less personal way, but restating Steve's question:

"Ought Christian . . . be allowed by the state to refuse lifesaving treatment for their children, if the therapy [is] obtained in such manner that [an embryo] [is] killed?"

Here is the problem which is being ignored. At first, those who wanted contraception legalized argued that each person should be able to act as he or she believed was permissible morally. In other words, these advocates argued, in essence, "if you don't believe contraception is moral, don't contracept, but don't prevent me from using contraception." Now, having obtained legalized contraception, they want to force those who oppose contraception in general or Plan-B in particular and who work as pharmacists to fill prescriptions to which they personally object on moral grounds and to force Catholic employers to cover contraceptives. At first, those who wanted abortion legalized argued that each person should be able to act as he or she believed was permissible morally. In other words, these advocates argued, in essence, "if you don't believe abortion is moral, don't abort, but don't prevent me from having an abortion." Now, having obtained legalized abortion, they want to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortion and force medical students who personally object on moral grounds to perform abortions as part of their medical training.

Now folks like you want the state to permit and even to fund ESC research and not be prohibited from doing so by the personal moral views of others. If such research develops lifesaving cures, should those who believe that the use of ESC therapy involves the murder of embryonic humans be required to have their children treated using such therapies if such treatment is necessary to save their child's life?

It is a simple question requiring no more than a yes or no answer. If you want to answer it with an explanation, you can of course do so. If you don't want to answer it, I have to wonder why. You certainly have no problems expressing your views on other matters. If the reason is because I have disclosed my personal interest in this matter, I must again remind you that your generalizations have real word applications and it is intellectually dishonest to argue for your position in a generalized sense and to ignore the fact that real people must live OR DIE based on those general principles if they are in fact put into practice.

Now please, answer the question or stop pontificating.

[dirk van glabeke]

GL,

- A few years ago I read an article about a discussion among scientists about the question if they should use results coming from Japanese experiments on prisoners during the WWOII. These experiments were about ways to survive extreme cold. I ask you, if you should somehow
after a shipwreck have the chance to be saved, are you going to refuse because the methods are based on experiments in which people (maybe american soldiers)
have died? Try to answer thruthfully.

- There are certain religious groups that refuse innoculation or bloodtransfusion. By doing this, in some cases, they consciously deney their children a chance for survival.
Do you accept that?
- There are parents that through their way of life (drugs,...) form a grave danger to their kids. Would you let them?
- Exorcism, a practice in some christian but also in other religions, has in some cases led to the death of
children thought to be possessed. Would you let this happen?

In a number of cases the opinions, ideas, attitudes,...
of parents will cause with great certainty the death of their children.
I feel that in these extreme cases society should protect these children from harm.
Because this is a very delicate matter rules on this subject should only be formed after a wide general informed discussion.

[dirk van glabeke]

GL,
I just read your last post. Seems we were posting almost at the same time. I hope I answered it clearly enough. The reason I waited was just a lack of time.

[GL]

Dirk,

Thanks for your response.

- A few years ago I read an article about a discussion among scientists about the question if they should use results coming from Japanese experiments on prisoners during the WWOII. These experiments were about ways to survive extreme cold. I ask you, if you should somehow
after a shipwreck have the chance to be saved, are you going to refuse because the methods are based on experiments in which people (maybe american soldiers)
have died? Try to answer thruthfully.

I honestly don't know. I am aware of the scenario. Coco suggested the same thing should a treatment be discovered via ESC which treatment, once discovered, did not itself involve further embyonic death. It would pose a moral dilemma for me and one for which I would seek pastoral counseling. That is not the same as saying, however, that I would accept treatment which necessitated the death of a POW. That is the more applicable analogy.

- There are certain religious groups that refuse innoculation or bloodtransfusion. By doing this, in some cases, they consciously deney their children a chance for survival.
Do you accept that?

Yes.

- There are parents that through their way of life (drugs,...) form a grave danger to their kids. Would you let them?

No.

- Exorcism, a practice in some christian but also in other religions, has in some cases led to the death of
children thought to be possessed. Would you let this happen?

Depends. I would of course not permit it if the techniques used themselves were known beforehand to likely cause their child's death.

I take it from you answer at the end that you think compelling such parents to have their children treated by procedures which would require the death of embryos is something you would seriously consider and one worthy of societal consideration. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your answer or confirm if I am correctly restating it. I am merely seeking clarity in doing so.

[Ethan Cordray]

Dirk, are the Chinese prison doctors certified lunatics? Were the Nazi death camp operators certified lunatics? May I ask who certified them?

But as we both know, there are real lunatics, running around as we speak in this same world where we live. There are serial killers, child-mutilating warlords, savagely brutal tyrants. They glare out at us from the headlines each day. Ought we to let the logic that drives such men also rule our medical establishment?

But I forgot. We are "sane" men. We are immune to such things. No civilized society has ever come to be ruled by such monsters.

Except, you know, Germany that one time.

You accuse me of not recognizing the boundary between sane and insane. What I recognize is that the boundary can be easily obscured by rationalizing our selfish desires, and that there can be much traffic of persons and societies to and fro.

If we dismiss the dark side as "insane" without ever truly examining it, how will we make sure not to accidentally cross over?

[YaknYeti]

Dirk,

Could you link to (or name) the thread in which you defended your view that being human doesn't make one a human? It would help those of us who neither post nor insult you regularly to keep up with your arguments.

My general solution to both your examples would be to look for a more creative solution. It is very rare that one is truly faced with a dilemma of choosing one life over another. In the train case, should it ever occur, saving five lives instead of saving one is correct. But what if I could flip the switch while the train is at the junction and derail it without killing anyone? As soon as you get into more complicated trade-offs, you run into trouble.

Bobby Winters mentioned your "organ donation" issue quite a while before you did, and in such a way as to make clear what the answer was. Killing one person to supply organs for five would be wrong. Stuart makes a good point earlier (to which you have not responded) saying that there is a difference between deliberately orchestrating someone's death and limiting the damage of an uncontrollable accident.

There are simply so many variables in organ donation that anyone who thinks the outcome is a foregone conclusion is blind. I donated a kidney to the wife of a friend a year ago. It has improved (and likely prolonged) her life, but the possibilities of rejection and the complications of the medicines she's on have made it anything but a simple return to normal life. If you try to kill one person to save five who are dying from organ failure, you may well end up with:
- two dying from surgical complications or incompatibility
- two living longer but difficult lives as they struggle with post-donation issues
- one living well for another 15 years or so before you need to kill another healthy person to keep him going

I don't know how one could justify that even from a strictly utilitarian point of view. For someone who says all human life has intrinsic worth, it illustrates the folly of trying to play God and kill an innocent person for the betterment of others. Why not be more creative, and do the best you can in treating those with organ failure while leaving the healthy folks alive?

The trickiest issue you've mentioned is the doctor on a battlefield, choosing who lives and who dies. The most moral solution seems to be to try to save as many lives as possible, and understand that some mistakes are going to be made due to limited time and resources. But this is a situation where freedom is severely limited, and utilitarian choices can be made.

Dirk, you're welcome to say that I'm splitting hairs, and that there's no difference between the train situation and the organ situation. But then I expect you to explain whether you've investigated the possibility of donating one of your kidneys to someone suffering kidney failure. I expect you have; after all, it would save someone else's life with a good chance of having little impact on yours (minus the few months of post-surgical recovery).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Except, you know, Germany that one time.<<<

And the Soviet Union, that one time before, in Ukraine. And China, that one time, during the Great Leap Forward. And Cambodia, that one time, when Pol Pot decided to remake humanity in his own image. And Kim Il Sung and son, that one time when they tried to make North Korea into a workers paradise. And Saddam, that one time when he decided to make Iraq Kurdenrein. And Milosevitch, that one time when he decided to make Kosovo Albanianrein. And that time in Rwanda. And next week, in Iran. But other than that, we're OK.

[dirk van glabeke]

Yaknyeti,

the thread is: http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/11/the_dawkins_del.html

several subjects were treated: rationality, the existence of God/ the supernatural, Dawkins
and after some pression by some of the forum: abortion
more or less round the 3th of januari

>>>nor insult you regularly <<<
at last someone notices LOL

>>>My general solution to both your examples would be to look for a more creative solution<<<

the point is to keep to the situation as described
so for instance as some try: to change the persons in
rich, jewish, family,... just detracts from the issue

my point will also not be to defend some kind of choice

personally my choice would be:
- to throw the switch, so the most people are saved
- not to kill the healthy person

more on this later

[dirk van glabeke]

Stuart,

maybe some US backed dictators too
oh but I forgot Saddam was once a friend of the US

[dirk van glabeke]

>>>? Were the Nazi death camp operators certified lunatics<<<

there are lunatics and there are people with demonstrably false views of the world.
As I answered you more than once, Nazism was a.o. based on a false view of racial inequality.

>>>If we dismiss the dark side as "insane" without ever truly examining it, how will we make sure not to accidentally cross over?<<<
the only way to get a deeper and accumulative knowledge about 'the dark side' is through science

So to battle such views, the answer is not revelation
but more rationality and science.

and please I am not dr. Pangloss

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>there are lunatics and there are people with demonstrably false views of the world.<<<

Obviously you never read Hannah Arendt's account of the Eichman trial.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>maybe some US backed dictators too
oh but I forgot Saddam was once a friend of the US<<<

Hardly a friend. But if you want to pile up bodies, I think you will find that the hands down winners of the last 100 years are all members of the atheistic left.

[David Gray]

>I forgot Saddam was once a friend of the US

Not really. More like a tool. Sort of like Stalin. For similar reasons. Which a Belgian should appreciate.

[Judy Warner]

Here's the progression of thoughts:

Ethan wrote:
No civilized society has ever come to be ruled by such monsters. Except, you know, Germany that one time.

Stuart wrote:
...And Kim Il Sung and son, that one time when they tried to make North Korea into a workers paradise. And Saddam, that one time when he decided to make Iraq Kurdenrein. .....

Dirk wrote:
maybe some US backed dictators too
oh but I forgot Saddam was once a friend of the US

Since that had absolutely nothing to do with anything anyone has said, I can only conclude that Dirk just likes to get cheap anti-American thrills. But I can't see why he insists he is rational and logical and the rest of us are in thrall to superstition.

[GL]

Dirk's response to my post demonstrates what is painfully obvious: live and let live morality is a myth. Each side wants to impose its morality on the other because each truly believes they are right. Given Dirk's view that embryos are not humans worthy of protection, it is only natural that he would at least consider demanding that parents whose children could benefit from ESC therapy be required to permit it, even it they object that embryos are humans and killing them is murder. That is because he honestly believes we are wrong and are denying real benefits to our children because of a outdated belief system proven wrong by science.

We, on the other hand, cannot agree to embronic stem cell research and therapy because we believe he is wrong, based both on our understanding of Christian ethics and morality and science.

There is no middle ground.

This natural tendency to impose one set of morality on the whole of society is one of the best arguments for Tony Esolen's belief that recriminalizing contraception should be considered. Accepting a compromise doesn't end the debate, it just moves it on to the next issue as the side gaining from the compromise seeks the next concession.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This natural tendency to impose one set of morality on the whole of society is one of the best arguments for Tony Esolen's belief that recriminalizing contraception should be considered. Accepting a compromise doesn't end the debate, it just moves it on to the next issue as the side gaining from the compromise seeks the next concession.<<<

There is another rule of governance that must also be considered: never make a law that you cannot enforce. Enforcement depends largely on the willingness of the majority of people to obey it voluntarily. If you cannot garner that consent, then no matter how well intentioned the law, it will fail. Witness prohibition, a law with the best of intentions that was an unmitigated disaster. Witness the 55 mph speed limit. When you pass a law with which the majority disagree, you create a nation of scofflaws, open avenues for criminal enterprise in what were once ordinary activities, and generate a deep resentment and cynicism in the populace.

Sure, IN THEORY one could recriminalize contraception. In actuality, it could never be done because (a) in a representative democracy you could not garner popular support for such a law; and (b) even if you did (for reasons of bizarre political dynamics like those surrounding prohibition) you could not enforce the law.

Face it, the toothpaste is out of the tube, which means that this issue at least is beyond legal remedy. If you truly believe that this is wrong, then the only solution is true metanoia, which can only be accomplished one soul at a time. It is, then, truly a matter for the Churches, and not for the state at all.

[GL]

I agree with you Stuart (see my earlier disagreements with Tony on this point and, of course, there is a greater likelihood of our colonizing Venus during my lifetime than there is that contraception will be recriminalized), but I am merely saying that our liberal friends are not really satisfied with live and let live on moral issues; they want their moral beliefs to control just as much as we do. If I believed what Dirk has said he believes in the past exchanges on this site, I would answer my question the same way he did. If an embryo is not a human and has no rights, then he has a point. I, of course, believe he is dead wrong. On this issue, there is no middle ground; either embryonic stem cell research raises no moral issues and a refusal to permits one's child to be treated with ESCs is morally wrong or embryos are humans and entitled to live and ESC research and treatment are evil acts. If you have friend who tells you that ESC research should be permitted and each person can decide for himself and those under his guardianship whether to be treated using ESC, don't believe him and explain to him why.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> but I am merely saying that our liberal friends are not really satisfied with live and let live on moral issues<<<

No, of course not. Their very political philosophy denies the possibility, since it is based on large-scale government intervention in the personal affairs of the populace. You can't redistribute income or impose "toleration" without a massive coercive effort. Their motto from the sixties, "The personal is political" says it all--and the converse is also true, "The political is personal". Taken in conjunction, these two inter-related positions make it impossible for them to stay out of anyone's face for any length of time. Even in regard to sex, they practice a kind of perverse inverted puritanism. Sex is supposedly good for you, so get to it, why don't you! As I often see in Europe, people engage in fornication like it was some sort of grim duty. I doubt they really enjoy it, but as someone once said:

In a libertarian society, all that is not forbidden is permitted.

In a totalitarian society, all that is not permitted is forbidden.

In a liberal society, all that is not forbidden is MANDATORY.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>As I often see in Europe, people engage in fornication like it was some sort of grim duty<<<

one of the best jokes I heard in a long time

LOLOLOLOLOL

Stuart, where do you go to?

from a european

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, where do you go to?<<<

Paris, London, Amsterdam, the Hague, Brussels, Bonn, Berlin, Rome, Florence, Milan, Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Moscow, Petersburg. Looking forward to Ankara and Constantinople, but that's not going to be business.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

you must have a very selective view

but I knew that already LOL

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

Judy,

I just noticed Stuarts selectiveness in his examples and decided to tease him with it

on the other hand, it's true, and one shouldn't be blind about history

please spare me a new 'you are anti-american' debate

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

on Eichman

true he was not mad and probably not an anti-semite

he was simply "doing his job" ("He did his duty...; he not only obeyed orders, he also obeyed the law.

does this sound familiar Stuart? Yes it's exactly
what you posted as a reason to negate free will.
I suppose you too are a fervent believer in doing your duty.

This kind of conformistic people are of all times
and in the service of an evil government they can do terrible harm.
I don't think religion is the answer though. Most religions even stimulate obeisance to authority.
Education to develop a critical mind that thinks for itself seems a better solution.
We are here in the realm of psychology, not ethics.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

later more on your weird views of liberal society

vey funny indeed LOL

[YaknYeti]

"Yaknyeti, the thread is: http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/11/the_dawkins_del.html

several subjects were treated: rationality, the existence of God/ the supernatural, Dawkins
and after some pression by some of the forum: abortion
more or less round the 3th of januari"

Interesting reading... gives me a better idea of why Stuart uses your name as a four-letter word.

>>>My general solution to both your examples would be to look for a more creative solution<<<

"the point is to keep to the situation as described
so for instance as some try: to change the persons in
rich, jewish, family,... just detracts from the issue

my point will also not be to defend some kind of choice

personally my choice would be:
- to throw the switch, so the most people are saved
- not to kill the healthy person

more on this later"

Respond when you like, Dirk, but I would like a response sometime. What is your point by posting these thought examples?

As a general rule, they annoy me because they are used to show that people who value human life intrinsically must still be willing to make choices over who will live and who will die. This is done by proposing situations that are so over-constrained that there are no good alternatives (the train example), and then attempting to apply the results to relatively unconstrained problems (organ donation, embryonic stem cell research). This is not a legitimate comparison because of the complexity issue.

But I'm eager to hear if you have a different motive.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

yes, but first I would like to continue my post on Eichman and conformism

the place to start on the subject of conformism is of course the famous Milgram
experiment

for those unfamiliar with it here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

look it up and be surprised!

one of the interesting things about it is that the results remain constant in different populations

it seems to show that religion or other moral systems don't mean much in certain situations. So a solution has to be found in educating the mind (as stated above) or/and in structural measures such as democratic systems and control of power and authority

the conclusion is that this example so aptly given by our friend Stuart, just confirms my point of view : )

[YaknYeti]

"it seems to show that religion or other moral systems don't mean much in certain situations. So a solution has to be found in educating the mind (as stated above) or/and in structural measures such as democratic systems and control of power and authority"

Dirk, the Wikipedia article specified that people of all educational backgrounds were tested, implying that education was not a factor in resisting authority. Why propose it as a solution?

As for "structural measures such as democratic systems and control of power and authority," how can those help in this situation, when the entire problem is one where authority figures betrayed the trust of those who were working for them? People will find ways to abuse, change or ignore those measures that you put in place.

Seems to me that you have two options: you can be your own authority, or find an outside authority that you can trust implicitly. Being your own authority puts you in Ethan's dilemma, where you have no reason to reject the base and harmful instincts within you.

Contrary to your post, I wouldn't contrive this experiment as denigrating religious authority. The person the participants are trusting in isn't a priest or rabbi, but a scientist. It suggests to me that people of this era put far too much faith in science. If some scraggly-looking hobo off the street asked people to perform the same experiment, I suspect you'd get different results. No, science (at least, in the areas of ethics and psychology) is too easily manipulable. Most of us on this site would be quite happy to explain why we've chosen the particular authority we've chosen, if you're interested in truly engaging the issue.

But I'm still waiting for an explanation of the importance of your earlier thought examples.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>Seems to me that you have two options: you can be your own authority, or find an outside authority that you can trust implicitly. Being your own authority puts you in Ethan's dilemma, where you have no reason to reject the base and harmful instincts within you.<<<

you seem to advocate putting your trust in authority and denying yourself the possibility of independent thinking. But it's just this kind of attitude that is shown by the experiment to lead in certain situations to disastrous results!

a quote:
In the end it matters little
what form that authority takes: any
social institution or agency that commands
the respect of the public by
creating the impression that its aims
are ultimately noble and in the best
interests of the public – religious,
philosophical, political or scientific –
carries within it the power and potential
to motivate and manipulate
people to act in any manner it deems
necessary. And when such institutions
come under the control or influence
of a relatively small numbers of
individuals with a common vision or
objective, the circumstances have
arisen by which a minority can control
the behaviour of the majority.

education: there is learning numbers and dates and there are other kinds of education

on structures: there exists something as counterbalancing power

on religion and authority:
That religion has demonstrated
this point in so appalling a fashion
can be explained by the fact that for
so much of its history it has not been
an exercise of personal piety but has
instead been rigidly institutionalised
and mired in rigid tradition. The
Christian religion provides a perfect
example. Though it seems, like many
religious movements, to have begun
as an effort on the part of a small
circle of people to promote personal
piety and righteous behaviour on the
part of individuals for a particular
end3, it quickly adopted the trappings
of a formal organisation and
later degenerated into a rigidly bureaucratic,
tightly hierarchical oligarchy
centred on an authoritative
body of sacred texts and traditions.
Independent thinking was discouraged
and the right of dissent all but
eliminated. It is in religions free of
such controlling dogmas and personalities,
where the emphasis is on the
betterment of the individual and
society rather than on the slavish
following of rules and the submission
of the will of the individual, that one
can see proof that the religious impulse
need not be expressed in a
manner that is socially detrimental.
If anything positive can be said about
New Age and nature-based spiritualities,
it is that they succeed where traditional
religion fails in fostering among their
followers a religiosity that is personal and
experiential as opposed to one that is
grounded in the authority and dogmas of
institutions and their scriptures. Among
the larger religions Confucianism deserves
mention as one that is more concerned
with individual piety and ethics
than dogmas.

[Judy Warner]

Dirk, wasn't it a highly educated population that succumbed to Nazism? And not just educated in "dates and numbers," but a society full of musicians and artists and scientists and philosophers.

Perhaps it is a good idea to pick an authority that has proved itself over the years. Otherwise you are putting all your faith in your own mind, a very shaky proposition for anybody. As for following authority blindly, it seems to be the "authoritarian" Americans who are constantly questioning. The open-minded Europeans, like the American left, are much more of one mind, a herd of non-conformists.

For instance, on the subject we keep returning to with you, there are many, probably millions, of Americans who have changed their minds on the question of when life begins and decided it begins at conception. They have done this because of science (learning about foetal development), religion (listening and thinking about to what religious people have to say), and personal experience. They have certainly not changed their minds because of what the secular leaders (the media, academia, the Democratic Party) say. It seems to be a very individual thing, with differences of opinion within social groups and even within families.

Can you name any such issue on which your fellow anti-authority Europeans have shown such independence?

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>Dirk, wasn't it a highly educated population that succumbed to Nazism? And not just educated in "dates and numbers," but a society full of musicians and artists and scientists and philosophers<<<

yes, but the Germans (at leatst those of the period of the WOII) are known to be obedient to authority. Already in the family there was a great distance between the children and the father. The whole family structure was geared towards being obedient to leadership.
I'm not advocating education without boundaries.
Just an education towards independent thinking.

[YaknYeti]

"you seem to advocate putting your trust in authority and denying yourself the possibility of independent thinking. But it's just this kind of attitude that is shown by the experiment to lead in certain situations to disastrous results!"

Depends on the authority, Dirk. Here, it sounds like you're defining "authority" as "outside authority," as opposed to "independent thinking." I agree that any earthly authority can and will be corrupted, given enough opportunity, whether political or religious. So based on that, I might choose independent thinking.

But you haven't fully engaged Ethan's earlier point. Independence allows the madmen and the psychopaths of the world free rein. If I'm supposed to question all authority, and I want to rip someone's heart out to provide a transplant for one of my children, why should I not do it? Most societies have set up some kind of authority or another because they can't handle true "independence" from authority.

I believe the solution coincides with the existence of God. There is a creator of the universe who is good, uncorruptable, and a worthy authority to guide our lives. I know this, not because of some great intuition on my part, but because God reached out to all humanity to show us this truth. We disagree here, I know, but that is my solution.

"I'm not advocating education without boundaries.
Just an education towards independent thinking."

Dirk, that is impossible. If you educate me to think independently of you, why should I accept your assertion that independent thinking is good?

"That religion has demonstrated
this point in so appalling a fashion
can be explained by the fact that for
so much of its history it has not been
an exercise of personal piety but has
instead been rigidly institutionalised
and mired in rigid tradition."

Some of this is because of corruption in the church (the small group of leaders twisting authority to improve their own power, as you mentioned above). On the other hand, if you look closely, I think you'll see that much of it is to create the "counterbalancing power" to prevent those sorts of problems. The discussion of "personal piety" and "experiential" factors will have to wait until later.

"education: there is learning numbers and dates and there are other kinds of education"

And how do you know that the PhDs involved in the test had strictly been taught numbers and dates? We have no data on the exact "education" involved, but more education generally involves moving beyond facts and figures to learning to independently come to new conclusions. Perhaps you have some new education that no one has ever taught before that will solve all of our problems, Dirk... but surely you must admit that this experiment is somewhat unfavorable toward education as a solution.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of the importance of your earlier thought examples.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>This natural tendency to impose one set of morality on the whole of society <<<
>>>live and let live morality is a myth. Each side wants to impose its morality on the other because each truly believes they are right<<<
>>>our liberal friends are not really satisfied with live and let live on moral issues; they want their moral beliefs to control just as much as we do.<<<
>>> Their very political philosophy denies the possibility, since it is based on large-scale government intervention in the personal affairs of the populace. <<<

I feel there are two thoughts expressed here:
-1) one side (the liberals) want to impose their view on the rest
-2) liberals (people who are for the admittance of bortion, euthanasia,...) are for state intervention

Both are wrong.
on 1
- Our Western societies built on liberal ideas are among he most tolerant in history
- the, what I defended, view that one should prevent parents to cause the death of their children, is not the same as imposing the liberal view on the rest
it's as if preventing suicide or child molestation is a sign of denying a permissible alternative view
it's exaggerating the situation
one policeman is not a policestate
from what I hear the pressure is more from the other side in the US
it would be unthinkable overhere to have a president, who should represent all, believers and unbelievers, in equal fashion, call upon God as his guidance

on 2:
- classical liberalism, as shown in the liberal political parties in europe,
combines a moral view that you would call liberal with a political-economic view of a limited state and free market

in general I would say: don't take what happens in the US as if it happened in all other places

>>>And I'm still waiting for an explanation of the importance of your earlier thought examples.<<<
this evening

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

just on 1
as an addendum:
yes it's imposing a view, but no one is going to claim that if you imprison a criminal, you are wrong because you are imposing a view
stopping a parent from killing his or her child falls in the same category
be it killing directly or through the omission of the proper cure

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

Judy,

your fellow countrymen fell back to the dominant view of the 50ties, there is no originality there.
The originality is with the group that first broke away from that view.

>>>Can you name any such issue on which your fellow anti-authority Europeans have shown such independence?<<<

well, we were against the Iraq war. : )
much to your presidents dismay who thought that we would like a puppy follow in his footsteps

Yaknyeti,
there are so many things in your last post on which I could react,...

I'll just try to rephrase the arument so far:

evil, not just stealing out of poverty but real evil:

Nathan and Stuart gave some examples, which they claim form a problem for the non-believer.

I classified some as people who are insane. They don't count because everyone can see that these people are not part of normality. Religion has no answer to insanity, (except are of course), science in a certain measure has and it's answer keeps growing.

Other examples were people with demonstrably false views of reality. Here science can show us why these people are wrong and why we must do something about them.

Then Stuart mentioned Eichman as an example that fell in neither of the above categories. I gave the Milgram experiment as a deeper going analisys of the phenomenon of conformity and as a finding that showed that morality (be it religious or not) is not the answer to this situation. The answer must then be sought in psychological or structural measures.

>>> Ethan's dilemma, where you have no reason to reject the base and harmful instincts within you.<<<

In general:

you believers always seem to have a very hard time understanding why we, unbelievers, just don't go around killing each other whenever the cops aren't looking. Since in your mind we have no reason, how can this be? Maybe we just don't have these base instincs, and you do. : )
In reality man is not evil nor good at birth, but he is a social being. Through his social contacts he learns the moral rules of his society and their emotional hooks in his mind. That is the explanation for us and for you.
As to why some still do evil acts, see the above answers to Ethan's and Stuart's examples.

And now for some more strenghtening argumentation:

[Ethan Cordray]

>>stopping a parent from killing his or her child falls in the same category be it killing directly or through the omission of the proper cure<<

I couldn't agree more completely with this in principle, Dirk, but it would only apply in this particular case under two presuppositions. Either

(A) Embryonic stem cell cures are morally neutral because embryos are not humans, or

(B) The embryo is a human, and it is possible to weigh the health of the cured child against the killing of the embryo to reap a net utilitarian benefit.

(A) is highly debatable, to say the least, and is rejected by most Christians (and Germans, apparently). (B) requires a moral framework that is completely alien to Christianity and inherently relativistic.

So, again, would you force a Christian to do such a thing, when it is counter to both their definition of human life and their overall moral framework? And if you would, how could such compulsion be defined as "liberal," or encourage "independent thinking?"

Also, on an unrelated note, your posts would be a lot easier to read if you paid closer attention to your line break formatting.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

The moral thought experiments?

- most people will choose for saving the five. Why? Calculation of the least harm. No, religious commandment necessary here.
- most people won't kill the healthy person, even though they will have a hard time trying to explain it. Why doesn't one kill him?
Kant already explained it: one can not use a rational being as an unwilling means to an end, even if this would give an advantage to others.
That's why this situation differs from the first. Killing him would be using him as a means.

These two experiments and others were used by Marc Hauser in his investigation into moral thinking. Hauser found that human moral thinking contains certain moral universalia that transcend geograhical and cultural boundaries and - vey important- also religious boundaries. People come to the same conclusions even though in many cases they can't give good reasons for doing so.
There were no statistic significant differences found between the judgement of atheists and believers. Hauser also conducted his experiments on a tribe in south america that had no formal religion. These people came to the same ethical judgements as we all.
The conclusion of the investigation is that our ethical judgements are guided by a universal moral grammar, product of evolution, and containing set of principles to build a scala of possible ethical systems. Just as in language
this grammar is outside of consciousness.
But I will let the man speak for himself:

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

an interview in American Scientist:

Author Interview
Other Interviews
Seth Lloyd
6/8/06
Nicholas Wade
5/25/06

The Bookshelf talks with Marc Hauser
Greg Ross
Oscar Wilde said, "Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." But how do we learn where to draw these lines? It's commonly understood that moral rules are instilled in church, school and home, but Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser believes that they have a deeper source—an unconscious, built-in "moral grammar" that drives our judgments of right and wrong.

Widely known for his studies of animal cognition (see "What Do Animals Think About Numbers?" in the March-April 2000 American Scientist), Hauser has long been intrigued by the nature of human moral judgment (interested readers can take his Web-based Moral Sense Test). He says the human sense of right and wrong, which evolved over millions of years, precedes our conscious judgments and emotions, providing a hidden engine of moral intuition that's shared by people around the world. "Our moral instincts are immune to the explicitly articulated commandments handed down by religions and governments," he writes. "Sometimes our moral intuitions will converge with those that culture spells out, and sometimes they will diverge." In Moral Minds (Ecco) Hauser draws ideas from the social and natural sciences, philosophy and the law to support his own findings for an unconscious moral instinct.click for full image and caption

American Scientist Online managing editor Greg Ross interviewed Hauser by e-mail in July 2006.

Can you describe what you mean by a moral grammar?

The core idea is derived from the work in generative grammar that [MIT linguist Noam] Chomsky initiated in the 1950s and that the political philosopher John Rawls brought to life in a short section of his major treatise A Theory of Justice in 1971. In brief, I argue that we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar, built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.

By grammar I simply mean a set of principles or computations for generating judgments of right and wrong. These principles are unconscious and inaccessible. What I mean by unconscious is different from the Freudian unconscious. It is not only that we make moral judgments intuitively, and without consciously reflecting upon the principles, but that even if we tried to uncover those principles we wouldn't be able to, as they are tucked away in the mind's library of knowledge. Access comes from deep, scholarly investigation.

Paralleling language, the notion of grammar that has been developed in modern linguistics is virtually incomprehensible outside the field of linguistics. The grammar we learned in school has virtually no resemblance to the grammatical principles uncovered by linguists. In the same way, once we delve deeper into our moral faculty we will uncover principles that are virtually unrecognizable from the social norms that we articulate and live by in our day-to-day lives. And in the same way that the unconscious but operative principles of language do not dictate the specific content of what we say, if we say anything, the unconscious but operative principles of morality do not dictate the specific content of our moral judgments, nor whether we in fact choose to help or harm others in any given situation.

If there is an innate moral instinct, why was it selected? What advantages does it bring?

First, the only way for selection to work, if we are discussing biological as opposed to cultural evolution, is for the trait to have some genetic, heritable component that is variable. Now the challenge comes in working out the selective advantage of such a capacity, and here there are at least two options.

First, it is possible that the moral instinct was originally selected due to its fitness consequences for maintaining social norms, some of which may have evolved long before humans emerged on earth. That is, the moral faculty provides a set of principles for cooperating, for punishing cheaters, for determining the conditions in which helping is obligatory, and so forth.

Second, it is possible that some of the computations that underlie our moral instinct evolved for reasons that are not specific to morality but were subsequently co-opted or adopted for morality, and then subject to a round of selection. For example, take the fact that many moral decisions are based upon whether an action was intended or accidental. If someone harms another, it is essential to assess whether the harm was intended or the result of an accident. If accidental, was it due to negligence? Though the intended/accidental distinction is critical to our moral evaluations, the ability to distinguish these two causal factors appears in non-moral situations: Though I am a fairly good tennis player, sometimes I hit a winner because I really aimed for a particular spot inside the line, and sometimes I accidentally hit the spot. The consequence is the same: I hit a winner.

Early in human development, children appear sensitive to these hidden psychological causes, appreciating that not all consequences are equal. They appreciate that the means of achieving a particular consequence matter for both moral and non-moral situations.

In this light, how should we regard social institutions such as education, religion and law, which transmit moral codes?

We are only at the beginning stages of this work, and the theoretical implications are fairly radical. But if the notion of a universal moral grammar is right, then it raises some interesting issues with respect to the role of experience, coming in from parents, teachers, religious institutions and so on.

Like language, the notion of a universal moral grammar should not be equated with the rejection of cultural variation. Like language, cross-cultural variation is expected. But the moral faculty will place constraints on the range of cross-cultural variation and thus limit the extent to which religion, law or teachers can modify our intuitive moral judgments.

For example, in a large sample of moral dilemmas that involve questions concerning the permissibility of harming other individuals, we have found no significant differences in the pattern of moral judgments between people who are religious and people who are atheists. Similarly, for a certain class of dilemmas we have found little effect of education. This is not to say that education and religion have no impact on our moral psychology. Rather, it is to say that certain aspects of our moral intuitions seem to be immune to such experience.

Where, then, does experience play a role? Here it is important to make a distinction between how we judge particular moral dilemmas and what we actually do. If I ask whether it is permissible for you to intentionally kill someone else, your initial response might be "No!" But upon reflection, you will soon realize that there are several contexts in which it is permissible to intentionally kill someone. For example, it is permissible in situations of self-defense and in war. And in some cultures or societies, it is permissible to have an abortion, to commit infanticide and to kill an unfaithful spouse. What this reveals is that associated with universal principles of harming and helping others are parameters or switches that experience flips, thereby creating small pockets of variation. This parallels language, where there is parametric variation for components of language, such as the order of subject, object and verb.

What remains to be explored is the extent to which experience might have effects on what we do, as opposed to how we judge certain dilemmas. Take, for example, the observation, confirmed by many studies, that people judge actions that cause harm as worse than omissions that result in the same harm. This bias pops up in all sorts of biomedical cases, of which the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is one prominent example. Thus, most countries allow for passive euthanasia, in which life support is terminated, but block actively ending someone's life by means of drug administration. Though the intent is the same in both cases—end the suffering of a patient with a terminal illness—and the consequence is the same—the patient dies—many members of the medical community see a need to make a legal distinction. What I argue, however, is that if people can be made aware of this bias, they may be able to end up at a different end point, one that is far more consistent with doctors and nurses working in the trenches who see the distinction as meaningless; and for some, there is the strong sense that passive euthanasia is less humane than active euthanasia, given that the patient will often suffer for a longer period of time.

If this faculty were lacking, in an individual or in our species, what effect would we see?

It's hard to say what the answer to this is at this point, because we have only begun to flesh out the theory and run the relevant experiments. That said, we have also begun to test patients with damage to particular parts of the brain, and thus our understanding is increasing at a rapid clip, with exciting results on the horizon. Let me give a few illustrative examples.

One of the challenging implications of the idea that our moral faculty is home to a universal moral grammar is that we generate intuitions about which actions are morally right or wrong prior to generating any emotions. On this view, emotions follow from our moral judgments, as opposed to preceding them. And on this view, emotions guide what we do as opposed to how we judge particular moral dilemmas. Following this through, we would predict that the clinical problem observed among psychopaths comes not from damage to their moral faculty, but rather from damage to the systems of emotion that lead from perception to action.

To explore this idea, we are testing psychopaths in collaboration with James Blair of the NIH. The prediction is that psychopaths will show normal patterns of responses to various moral dilemmas, but show deficits in what they actually do. That is, they will have intact moral knowledge, but deficits in morally relevant actions due to problems of emotional control.

Though we have yet to collect the relevant data on psychopaths to affirm or reject this idea, we have collected data on a closely related population of patients with damage to the frontal lobes. These patients have been characterized as "acquired sociopaths," given that the damage leads to socially inappropriate behavior. The most famous of these patients is Phineas Gage, who in the 19th century suffered severe damage to the frontal lobes due to injury from a railroad tamping iron and went from a model citizen to an individual who lost his job, lost all sense of social appropriateness and ultimately became a vagrant, aimlessly wandering from town to town.

In our recent studies, collaborating with a patient population that has been carefully studied by the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio and his colleagues, we have found an exciting and highly selective deficit. Whereas these patients show normal patterns of responses to a relatively large class of moral dilemmas, they show highly abnormal responses on one specific type of dilemma. In particular, where the action involves personal contact with another individual, and where the choice is between harming one versus many, and there are no clear social norms available to decide, these patients consistently take the utilitarian route, selecting the option that yields the greatest good regardless of the means required to achieve such ends. Thus, damage to this particular area of the brain, one that connects emotional processing with high-level decision making, yields a highly selective deficit in moral judgment. Of course, if you are a utilitarian, your interpretation will be different! You will think that it is because of irrational emotions that we don't all think like utilitarians, seeing the overall good as the only relevant moral yardstick.

You've studied the differences between human and animal minds. Do you believe that other species have moral instincts?

What I believe we can say at present is that animals have some of the key components that enter into our moral faculty. That is, they have some of the building blocks that make moral judgments possible in humans. What is missing, with the strong caveat that no one has really looked, is evidence that animals make moral judgments of others, assigning functional labels such as "right," "wrong," "good," "bad" and so on to either actions or individuals.

In many ways, our understanding of animals is not even ripe for the picking, because almost all of the work that is relevant to morality entails studies of what animals do as opposed to how they judge what others do. Thus, we have beautiful accounts of how animals behave during cooperation and competition, including observations of how individuals respond to personal transgression, such as taking food in the presence of a more dominant animal. But what is missing are observations and experiments that systematically address what counts as a transgression or expectation for helping or harming, when the observer is not directly involved. In the same way that we can judge an act as gratuitously violent even when it doesn't concern us directly, we want to understand how animals perceive violations of social norms, including what they expect and what they consider anomalous.

These caveats aside, we are beginning to understand some of the relevant building blocks that are not specific to morality but play a key role. For example, in work on tamarin monkeys and chimpanzees, there is evidence that individuals distinguish between intentional and accidental actions. This is important because it shows, contrary to many prior claims, that animals are attending to more than the consequences. If animals lacked this capacity, then they wouldn't even be in the running for consideration as moral agents. Further, animals seem to distinguish between animate and inanimate objects, which, again, is not a specifically moral distinction but is critically involved in moral judgments. Gratuitously smacking a candy machine may be perceived as odd but has no moral weight; gratuitously smacking a baby is not only odd but morally wrong!

What implications does a moral instinct have for current ethical debates like euthanasia and stem-cell research?

As I briefly mentioned above, the more we understand about our moral instinct, the more we may be able to make people aware of some of the psychological biases that they carry forward in their moral deliberations. Part of the work will come from understanding which aspects of our moral instinct tap specifically moral psychological processes and which tap more general systems of the mind. Thus, ethical questions such as euthanasia and stem-cell research entail questions about personhood, ownership, actions versus omissions, and responsibility; none of these are specifically moral issues. Thus, the fact that many perceive active euthanasia as worse than passive euthanasia may stem from a non-moral bias to see actions as more intentional than omissions. For example, if I intentionally knock off my mother's priceless vase from the table, that is worse than if I fail to catch it from falling off the table but could have. In the end, my mother's vase is broken, but most will see my knocking it off the table as worse.

To be explicit, the theory that I have developed in Moral Minds is a descriptive theory of morality. It describes the unconscious and inaccessible principles that are operative in our moral judgments. It does not provide an account of what people ought to do. It is not, therefore, a prescriptive theory of morality. That said, I am certain that a better understanding of the descriptive principles will ultimately shape how we develop our prescriptive theories, be they legal or religious. Here's how and why. Theories or statements concerning what we should do are based on notions about the human condition, about a life well lived and the conditions that support it. We think about freedom and justice, and we then explore this space, constantly reflecting upon the current situation and whether things could be better. But ultimately, any change that we attempt to impose because we think things ought to be different will potentially be opposed or resisted by our evolved psychology. Thus, though our biology does not dictate what we ought to do, we are much more likely to implement changes in our legal, religious or political policies by attending to the psychological predispositions that our biology handed down, and that local culture and recent history may have tuned up.

[Bill R]

"The conclusion of the investigation is that our ethical judgements are guided by a universal moral grammar, product of evolution, and containing set of principles to build a scala of possible ethical systems."

Christians would agree there is a "universal moral grammar." But we attribute that to our design by God and not, as you assume, to a "product of evolution." Cf. Romans 1 and C.S. Lewis's "The Abolition of Man."