From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 18:02:32 MST
Lee Corbin writes:
> Gasbag writes
[-I'll take that as a fair cop. Maybe if the nickname catches
on I'll get a bit more personal space in elevators ]
[Lee}
> > > Even in values, it is unwise [as Brett has pointed out] to
> > > say "Blah, blah blah, and blah. This is what I BELIEVE!",
> > > e.g., "It is horrible and obscene and cruel and therefore
> > > WRONG for a woman to cut the arms off her daughter, and
> > > THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE", completely shutting oneself
> > > down further critical inquiry and pursuit of consistency.
> >
> > An example comes to mind:
> >
> > ---------
> > "I BELIEVE that "human life" begins at conception, therefore,
> > "therapeutic cloning" should not be permitted *even* if it could
> > be shown that the lives of many sick people would be saved by
> > it".
> > ---------
>
> Yes, but in fairness to the anti-abortionists, it should
> be noted that this example is hypothetical.
> I don't ever remembering seeing any of them use this
> wording, and therefore reveal themselves as suffering this
> problem.
Ok, but *this one* comes from the leader of government business in
the lower house. Tony Abbott MP. Looks pretty similar to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe (sic) that life (sic) begins at conception. I believe that any
other points we might choose are essentially arbitrary and uncertain.
And I believe that this is a view founded not in religion, not in faith,
but on the logic of the matter. ....
[L]et me make this very clear: even if destroying embryos to harvest
their stem cells could create the medical miracles, which are now
so commonly claimed, I would be against it, because there are some
things that we cannot do, no matter how good the cause."
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr210802.pdf
[The above link will take you to the Hansard record for the relevant
day. If you put "believe" in your browser and search the PDF
you'll see it for yourself. ]
And in fairness to the anti-abortionists not all of them are against
"therapeutic cloning" I'm pretty sure American Senator Orin Hatch
is both pro-life and pro-therapeutic cloning.
> True, many of them seem to act as though this is how
> they are thinking---but on the other hand, there are
> many reasoned defenses of the anti-abortionist stand.
They start from a position of faith or belief assume that as an axiom
and reason from there. When what needs to be made are resourcing
decisions and a large part of the community start with the belief that
there another life coming by supernatural action that is no trivial
axiom. A large part of the solution to all human problems is "assumed"
away.
> But can't you think of innocent sentences that contain those
> concepts (the innocent form of the "I believe" one, anyway)?
Innocent yes. I'm not arguing that belief is malicious I'm arging
that it is unsophisticated to the point of being in some cases, where
it becomes part of the basis for determining social policy in
democracies extremely dangerous to believers and non-believers
alike. I am also arguing that their is never a good reason for an
extropian to use the word (there are always better words available)
and that therefore it well behoves us to avoid reinforcing the
perception that believing is as valid as reasoning in a social world.
> As I said earlier, I think that one must read between the
> lines, and be on the lookout for bad concepts, and that the
> particular words employed aren't a reliable guide.
I can do that. You can do that. Most extropians can do that.
But why rely on the general population to read between the
lines when it is within our power and costs us nothing but a little
bit of disciple to make the moral difference between believing and
reasoning more clear. Perhaps you don't agree that there is
a moral difference?
> > *If* the stakes were not so high, it would almost be comic that the,
> > "true believers" defense of "human life" leads to an increase in
> > the chances of actual persons (sick people) dying earlier and harder
> > than they otherwise might have.
>
> The burden of proof is definitely on them to suggest how
> it could be that allegiance to human life or living could
> result in banning, for example, stem cell research. But
> we do know what they'd say; it would be something like
If some people are making policy, social policy, national laws on
stem cells strongly under the influence of beliefs and holding the
notion that "we" must not play God, is it not sensible for us to
tackle and challenge those notions of believing (which is personal)
and the notion that "we should not play God" which involves some
substantial beliefs, head on, or at least to do our bit to deprive
the believers of the moral high ground?
> "When you understand that (a) human life really begins at
> conception and (b) politically, the use of stem cells will
> inevitably lead to the sacrifice of many innocents, then
> you will understand that suppressing this evil really is
> better for human life and human persons in the long run."
>
> Of course you and I balk at the idea of 10^-4 seconds
> before conception there is zero (0) persons and 10^-4
> seconds following conception there is one (1) fully
> equal human being. AND THAT'S WHERE OUR REAL
> DIFFERENCES WITH THEM LIE! Not in word usage
> (this time).
That's where our philosopical differences lie, but it doesn't stop
with philosophy. Peoples worldviews are taken with them into
parliaments and congress and votes are taken there that effect
all of us profoundly.
I balk also at using the term human beings. If we use the terms
"human beings" and "human life" to describe persons we cede
them terminology and the moral and political high ground. Our
use of these terms when we mean persons reinforces their abuse
of the terms putting them in the position of being able to argue
one "human being" or one "human life" is as good as another,
which we know is patently absurd (cancer cells are human life,
sperm is human life) its not what we know that determines laws
its what the majority in the community or their representatives
vote on in parliament and in congress. If we encourage or don't
oppose the use of such language we will see it used against us
over and over.
Actually whilst I think my point on belief is valid, I think the
urgency is greater for understanding the harm that can arise by
allowing the notion that all forms of "human life" or all "human
beings" are morally equal to go unchallenged. I think it behoves
us to propagate the concept of personhood. And the best place
to start is with our own use of thoughts and language.
> > But then the "true believers" don't really believe the dead
> > are "dead" and they are often quite willing to act on that
> > "belief" and implement policy consistent with it if they can.
> > And policy that becomes law
> > applies to everyone.
>
> Again, I see nothing semantically wrong with their belief.
> If I thought that the fact was that there is a Supreme Being
> who'd deliver the actual consciousness of dead people to
> Heaven, then I'd have no objection to what they claim. It's
> only an *ontological* difference I have with them, not a
> semantic one.
Its not just about semantics, its about the consequences for
social policy when those who believe in a Supreme Being of
the sort that will underwrite rights and that offers a form of
afterlife for free vote in large numbers on the basis of that belief.
With the concept of a Supreme Being typically comes the
notion of "God" given rights. Problem is these god given rights
are sometimes attempted to be translated into secular rights (as
with the stem cell debate) can't be effectively underwritten by
secular resources so what actually happens is that secular
responsibilies cannot be fulfilled. Societies cannot carry out
the same level of rights underwriting. Believers don't have the
capability to underwrite the God given rights they want to see
incorporated into the social compact but that doesn't stop them
from trying and it does undermine the social compact. When
you break the nexus between rights granted by a society and
rights assumed by the citizens of a society and try an pad the
rights side with supernatural extras the books no longer balance.
And as we know believers don't stop at trying to secularise
God given rights with resources that are not available they also
tend to have beliefs about what is permissible to be done in
a secular society to increase our capacity to underwrite new
rights - I'm referring now to the old chestnut "we should not
play God".
>
> (By the way, there is a huge difference between terminological
> disputes, which are comparatively trivial, and semantic ones
> which involve concepts. Korzybski's general semanticists have
> succeeded in spreading the correct memes concerning the latter
> IMO.)
I've written a lot in this post and others now about the prudence
of extropians choosing to avoid the terms "human life" and "human
beings" when they actually mean persons or people and about
using alternative words for "belief". I see this not as an exercise
in Newspeak but about adopting better, clearer, word-memes,
and depriving those who would use these words in political forums
working against extropian aspirations from appearing to have the
moral high ground.
But am I getting anywhere at all?
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST