From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 12:36:16 MST
Lee writes, to Eugen:
> So which is it? Do you think disabled persons with a
> hereditary defect should be allowed to procreate?
> To obtain clones (when it's perfected)?
I would also like to hear Eugen's and other's ideas about this
difficult problem. However I would phrase the question differently,
not in terms of what is "allowed", but in terms of what is right
and wrong. Specifically:
"If you were a disabled person with a hereditary defect, would you
attempt to procreate (supposing that embryo screening to eliminate the
defect were not possible)? Would it be right for you to clone yourself
when it is perfected?"
In my experience we move too quickly from the question of what is right
to the question of what is allowed. These are very difficult and complex
issues, but all too soon we are trying to decide the matter not only for
ourselves, but for our neighbors as well. But if we are still struggling
with the issue in our own minds, how can we have the confidence to say
what the right answer is for someone else?
>From the rhetorical perspective, moving to questions of coercion hurts the
process of discussion. People become defensive and accusatory. Some are
afraid their rights will be taken away by force. Others are worried
that they will be compelled to allow criminal injustice to go unanswered.
People adopt positions and defend them. The memetic warfare escalates,
rhetorical bombs being hurled, no quarter given, innocent bystanders
repulsed. Collateral damage to the list, to the principles of civil
discourse, is ignored as winning the memetic battle becomes the only goal.
It's also rather pointless, since none of us is in a position to
enforce our beliefs anyway. We are all out on the fringe, and it will
be a long time before our influence is enough to change the larger
political process that will end up deciding what is actually allowed.
No political position taken by a member of this list is a threat to
anyone here. We have no dictators, no presidents, no members of the
national judiciary or legislature.
I would encourage people to step back from the question of what should be
allowed and to try to focus the discourse on questions of what personal
actions we would choose in various circumstances. Life is not easy,
there are many hard questions facing all of us. I would like to see
us work together to try to explore the various arguments on all sides
of the issues. We should try to respond constructively to each other,
rather than falling into the trap of constant vitriolic debate.
Building up the positions and arguments given by others should happen as
often as tearing them down. People should present arguments on both sides
of every issue! This simple step would go a huge way towards orienting
our efforts towards problem solving and brainstorming rather than winning
debates. Surely we are all intelligent enough to realize that there
are good arguments on both sides. Why do so few of us present them?
I think it is symptomatic of the flawed process I describe above.
I would encourage debaters to write a posting making the best arguments
they can for the position in some dispute which they think is weaker. Do
it as a test of your intellectual integrity and argumentative abilities.
Don't undercut your posting by saying that you don't really believe it,
because that is your ideology riding you. It is kicking in the spurs
and tightening the leash around your neck, afraid you might escape its
mastery. Make the arguments be true and honest and consistent. You don't
have any need to apologize for speaking the truth, even if you believe
that on balance there are opposing arguments that are more persuasive.
Anyone who participated in competitive debate in school knows that you have
to be able to argue both sides equally well. It is a good exercise for
seeing issues clearly, uncontaminated by ego and ideology.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST