RE: Whose business is it, anyway?

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 01:44:59 MST


Damien wrote

> Suppose a grown phocomelus wishes to have a child just like
> herself? This might be arranged via access to thalidomide at her embryo's
> appropriate developmental stage. Is this a right course of conduct? Ought
> other adults in the vicinity to intervene to prevent it? If thalidomide
> doesn't work, might she then ethically truncate the baby's limbs by surgery
> to ensure that she has brought into existence some more people like herself,
> with her special rich idiosyncratic way of being-in-the-world?

I count three questions there:

1. Is her course of conduct right?

   I have long had a hunch that this is exactly the wrong
   question to ask. It brings bad memes and patterns of
   thinking into play. Let's try to be physicists for a
   moment and consider instead the physical processes
   involved, and think very carefully whether or not we
   approve. The latter is, again, physically all we have
   ---one must consider one's own brain as a physical
   device and note its approval and disapproval. Where
   is "right" and what are its physical manifestations?

   (I ought to proceed to question 2 here, but it's extremely
   important for my kind of "moral relativist"---if that's
   what I am---to nonetheless stoutly defend my intolerance
   and visceral hatred of some moral systems I disapprove of,
   e.g., a system that allows or causes extreme amounts of
   unnecessary suffering for no reason whatsoever.)

2. Ought other adults in the vicinity to intervene to
   prevent it?

   I wish to continue to push the approach that I have been
   advocating. Those other adults need to determine if it
   is properly any of their business or not. If my sister
   who lives with us tries that and all the rest of the family
   would be as horrified as I, then, yes, I step in. On the
   other extreme, if she lives on a farm miles from anyone
   else, or lives extremely independently of everyone else,
   then I suggest that it's none of my concern, properly
   speaking, and refrain from acting on my approvals and
   disapprovals. In between these extremes is to be found
   a large number of hard cases that would be very difficult
   for me.

3. If thalidomide doesn't work, might she then ethically truncate
   the baby's limbs by surgery to ensure that she has brought into
   existence some more people like herself, with her special rich
   idiosyncratic way of being-in-the-world?

   I agree with Hal, who wrote "That's a great question". Such
   questions make me very unsure of what "ethics" means, and cause
   me to wax skeptical that it should be considered. But let's
   consult the Golden Rule for an interesting insight. According
   to that, what she's doing is quite ethical, as in one way that
   is exactly what she would want her mother to do if the roles
   were reversed.

   Although an ethical analysis defies me right now, I know whereof
   I approve: I do not approve. A human being with arms is a more
   advanced creature than one without, and the "rich culture" of
   the limbless far poorer than that of the great majority. In
   every case, I would try to talk her out of it, and if it was
   any of my business, I might very well use force.

> (I should stress at once that this is a thought experiment;
> I don't know of any tragic victim of thalidomide who would
> consider for a moment doing this to another human. But we
> know that many congenitally deaf or dwarfed people are eager
> to do the equivalent.)

If in our search for consistency we encounter too much foul
weather, a retreat right here on this front might be in order.
We can give less weight to unlikely scenarios. Only folks
who are extremely confident that they can obtain consistency
without sacrificing their comfort or equanimity believe that
simple solutions to these hard questions can be uniformly
discovered.

One solution that appalls me is for certain strident types
to consult themselves as to what they like and don't like
("drugs BAD!", "cutting off arms BAD!") and then rationalize
like crazy to justify their imposing their conclusions by
force or by majority tyranny.

Lee



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST