Killing Babies

[El_Machinae]

I was kidding about those Brits. Just pulling together my allusion.

I don't see a difference between punishing someone for doing something wrong, and punishing someone for doing something that is bad for society, because when you do something morally wrong, you hurt yourself and you hurt society.

Scary stuff that you're typing here, actually. If you feel that it's okay to punish people for immoral behaviour, then you need to be very, very careful about where you're forming your criteria about 'wrongness'.

I can probably think of a dozen things that you'd consider 'morally wrong' and yet you could not make a convincing case that those activities hurt either myself or society.

In general, most laws are about protecting society, not punishing 'wrongness'. Though in many cases there's an overlap. Killing babies is certainly one of those areas

 

[Elrohir]

Scary stuff that you're typing here, actually. If you feel that it's okay to punish people for immoral behaviour, then you need to be very, very careful about where you're forming your criteria about 'wrongness'.

I can probably think of a dozen things that you'd consider 'morally wrong' and yet you could not make a convincing case that those activities hurt either myself or society.

In general, most laws are about protecting society, not punishing 'wrongness'. Though in many cases there's an overlap. Killing babies is certainly one of those areas

Not all morally wrong things, of course. I'm not saying that - I'm just saying that there should be a fundamental moral reason behind laws, generall yspeaking, or it shouldn't be a law. Even when you're doing something as mundane as taxes - it's right to pay taxes because the government protects you, and you need to support the government.

I'll get back to you later, Civ4 is calling me now.

 

[El_Machinae]

Naw, no need. We pretty well are agreeing as it is, and are just spiraling the drain of semantics.

 

[Pikachu]

A baby doesn't know that it needs to breathe air to live, and consequently can't care. Therefore, a baby doesn't objectively need to breathe air to live. Oh wait...

But why do you assume that a baby objectively needs to live? Please explain!

So... it's okay to kill babies?

Well, I wouldn’t do it if I was you, but I will not impose my irrational moral views on you either. Why should I condemn other people for not subscribing to my own distorted moral views as long as this does not hurt innocent people?

Personally, I think this argument is repulsive, and I hope your philosophy teacher is merely trying to start a discussion on the inherency of rights. If he's serious, then you should quit his class, and he really isn't worth listening to. You're better off sitting under a tree, reading some Plato and Kant, and thinking for yourself than listening to that drivel.

So what you are saying is basically that you can’t learn much from people who disagrees with your own fundamental preconceptions? Should anti-abortion people use this kind of argument too? “If your teacher really thinks abortion sometimes is acceptable, then you should quit his class, and he really isn't worth listening to.”

I don’t understand this. I would guess that you could learn more from someone who fundamentally disagrees with you than from someone who mostly agrees with you.

If you own the Mona Lisa, then just as you please, it's not a moral issue at all.

I guess the teacher is challenging this view. If I bought the Mona Lisa and used it as toilet paper, many people would feel it as huge loss for humanity. People would be hurt by this act, and then it is reasonable to say that it could be a moral issue. Maybe destroying private property that is considered a part of our cultural legacy should be illegal?

If that's really what your teacher is saying, that this isn't a moral issue at all, then he should support the decriminalization of infanticide.

Maybe he does support decriminalization of infanticide? That is obviously a logical consequence of his belief. I doubt this is something he cares enough about to really fight for, but I suppose at least that this teacher would not protest if the ban on infanticide was abolished.

If you can't be right, at least be consistent.

I would assume the teacher is consistent. Do you have any reason to assume otherwise?

 

[QuoVadisNation]

If we follow "[common] human norms", human babies possess natural rights to live; pieces of artwork and rocks, and even animals do not. Your professor's analogy was a little drastic, I think.

 

[Azash]

Self-defense.
Some day you might not be able to function as a member of society, and yet you will want rights.

I would want death.

 

[Azash]

And who decides who are not fully functionable in society? You?

Legislators, should they choose to agree with me - I doubt it.

 

[Pikachu]

If we follow "[common] human norms", human babies possess natural rights to live;

Obviously, but why are common human norms like this? And when should we change these norms? Common human norms haven’t always been like this. In the pre-Christian world the opposite view was most common. Some places infanticide was even mandatory in some cases. If you read the basic laws of the Roman republic for example, you might be surprised to find this law:

TABVLA IV: “Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto.”
Translation: “An obviously deformed child must be put to death.”

 

[Elrohir]

Naw, no need. We pretty well are agreeing as it is, and are just spiraling the drain of semantics.

M'kay.

So what you are saying is basically that you can’t learn much from people who disagrees with your own fundamental preconceptions? Should anti-abortion people use this kind of argument too? “If your teacher really thinks abortion sometimes is acceptable, then you should quit his class, and he really isn't worth listening to.”

No, I'm not saying that just because someone holds a different viewpoint, they aren't worth listening to. But there is such thing as someone who is so deranged, so far out there that you can't have a truly informative intellectual debate with them. Would you agree on that poitn?

I don’t understand this. I would guess that you could learn more from someone who fundamentally disagrees with you than from someone who mostly agrees with you.

Possibly, but not necessarily.

I guess the teacher is challenging this view. If I bought the Mona Lisa and used it as toilet paper, many people would feel it as huge loss for humanity. People would be hurt by this act, and then it is reasonable to say that it could be a moral issue. Maybe destroying private property that is considered a part of our cultural legacy should be illegal?

It could be considered a moral issue, depending upon your intentions. Regardless, it would be legal and isn't comparable - the Mona Lisa is an inanimate object, not a human being. I would gladly burn the Mona Lisa into ash to save the life of a child, as I don't think possessions should outweigh human life.

Maybe he does support decriminalization of infanticide? That is obviously a logical consequence of his belief. I doubt this is something he cares enough about to really fight for, but I suppose at least that this teacher would not protest if the ban on infanticide was abolished.

If he does support the decriminalization of infanticide, then he is at least consistent, if deranged.

 

[sween32]

what the hell????

 

[sween32]

a legal abortion, a botched abortion, or a new-born in a garbage can.

they all happen in a place we call reality. pick one.

 

[ShannonCT]

But why do you assume that a baby objectively needs to live? Please explain!

I don't. I'm just assuming that a baby needs to breathe air in order to live.

Let me remind you of your logic:

A baby doesn’t know if it has the right to live or not, and consequently it can’t care. Therefore a baby objectively doesn’t need that right at all.

You're claiming that someone doesn't need something if they don't know they need it. And yet a baby needs to breathe air to live even though the baby doesn't understand what air is or what living is. Your logic is flawed.

Let's apply your logic specifically to rights. In a hypothetical totalitarian society, the ruling class indoctrinates the citizens of the country to believe that their lives belong to the state, and that the state can take their lives whenever it wants. Therefore, the ruling class is justified in killing and eating the rest of the population.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Obviously, but why are common human norms like this? And when should we change these norms? Common human norms haven’t always been like this. In the pre-Christian world the opposite view was most common. Some places infanticide was even mandatory in some cases. If you read the basic laws of the Roman republic for example, you might be surprised to find this law:

TABVLA IV: “Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto.”
Translation: “An obviously deformed child must be put to death.”

good point. This is just a guess, considering the nature of most of my posts, that the natural right to life can be compromised for the sake of preservation of other rights. For the Romans, a deformed child would not only be a financial risk, but also a detriment to the society as a whole (see Spartans). This all is done to enforce the other putatively natural right to liberty (meaning, asserting your own sovereignty over the will of others or to act in a particular way for personal benefit). That old Roman maxim is pretty applicable to the situation we have with abortion. The only difference is that people claim that alleged fetus isn't a life (yet).
Yet in each society, the personal expectation of being allowed to live exists until that live does something "egregious" to their society. Even for the Romans. Otherwise, there wouldn't be universal laws, or "norms", against killing somebody without just reason. Personally, to me, this is all just theoretical jurisprudence. I'd like to know what you think.


As to why exactly those "norms" exist and place priority over other things, I have no idea. It just seems to be that way. Practical self-interest maybe?

 

[Azash]

If he does support the decriminalization of infanticide, then he is at least consistent, if deranged.

Why would that make him deranged?

 

[ori]

@Ori: If someone is not able to function as a member of society, why the need for human rights?

Now that is quite another form of argument:

The first one is looking at the individual (the baby) and whether it has rights dependent on its level of self-consciousness (which Singer puts forth as a prerequisite for the right to live).
Your argument on the other hand looks at society as a body politics which grants individuals certain rights only as long as those are a useful part of it. I won't accept this either but this really boils down to the discussion whether human individuals have intrinsic rights or whether all human rights are subject to convention. I would argue that there is such a thing as universally valid human rights - but then again there are quite a few people who don't buy that

Now that of course is coming from a secular philosophy point of view - I could always go back to a religious argument that all human beings are created by god and that murdering them is a sin as stated in the bible But I won't do that - not everyone accepts the validity of biblical commandments for some reason . Therefore I'll just resort to the two international declarations I feel as valid for my conduct both as a member of society and a physician:

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. (...)


Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (...)


Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.(...)


Article 25.
(...)All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.(...)


Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

A PHYSICIAN SHALL act in the patient's best interest when providing medical care. (...)
I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;
I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat

Note that while the second quote only applies to health care it is based on one important principle: The individual's best interest as opposed to the society's best interest - Those two do not necessarily have the same aims in health care nor in other areas of society. Back on topic: if you (as the Universal Declaration does) grant every human being intrinsic rights from birth you cannot condone infanticide - if you regard those rights as relative and argue that society has to decide who is a worthy member and who is not you can condone infanticide. But in this case you'll soon ask whether sick people are worthy members, whether elderly people are worthy members, whether unemployed people are worthy members, whether ...

 

[classical_hero]

If something can feel pain, would that be considered a responce to Stimuli and thus be consider life?

 

[ori]

If something can feel pain, would that be considered a responce to Stimuli and thus be consider life?

How do you determine if something feels pain? Pain is (atleast in part) a construct of your brain. Response to stimuli is much easier to determine: e.g. will that organism try to avoid or withdraw from a damaging stimulus? is easier to determine than does that same stimulus cause pain to that organism... Life is much broader defined than feeling pain.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess the teacher is challenging this view. If I bought the Mona Lisa and used it as toilet paper, many people would feel it as huge loss for humanity.

As a potentially insightful aside: in Canada it's illegal to threaten destruction of an object that you're bidding for (in an auction). You're not allowed to say "If I win the bid for the Mona Lisa, I will burn it." Obviously, you're allowed to destroy things you own (excepting (maybe) certain treasures). But you can't threaten it at an auction.

I would want death.

Then self-defense kicks in again. You should support the right of people to request death if certain conditions were met. Since I want to be repaired if I'm damaged (to a certain point), and you want to be killed, we can both agree to respect the other person's position.

 

[Elrohir]

Why would that make him deranged?

Why would believing ethnic cleansing is justified make someone deranged? I don't see a moral difference between saying "It's OK to kill them because they're young" and "It's OK to kill them because they're Chinese/Poles/Jews/Black/Plutonian".

 

[Gogf]

If something can feel pain, would that be considered a responce to Stimuli and thus be consider life?

Yes. But despite what some people will tell you, no society on earth considers all life to be "sacred." We willfully kill enormous numbers of living beings when we take antibiotics. Thousands of our own skin cells (which, I remind you, have the same DNA that an ebryo does) are killed every time we use soap. Hell, we mass produce life in order to destroy it.

Most people in the world do not morally object to antibiotics, soap, and agriculture. There is a sizable lobby (which I don't happen to agree with) against the mass production of animals for food. People probably object to the killing of animals and not bacteria and plants because animals have brains. We have no idea if animals are conscious or not, but it's much less of a stretch to say that they are than to say that a plant or bacterium is.

So, if life isn't sacred in the world, what is? Well, in America, human life is sacred. If we're thinking about abortion, we now have to figure out when a human is first created. Because life is an unbroken chain stretching back to the first living organism, there is no "synthesis of life" in the womb. A sperm cell and an unfertilized egg are just as much alive as a fertilized egg is.

A human embryo looks almost identical to a chimpanzee embryo. For certain period of our lives, every one of us had a tail. The only unique human characteristic of a human embryo is its DNA, but that DNA is also present in a human skin cell, which is, not surprisingly, also alive. A fertilized egg is not a human being; it is a potential human being.

When does it become a human? The greatest asset of human being has been our ability to think. We're not the fastest, the strongest, or the biggest animals in the world. But we are the smartest. I contend, therefore, that an embryo becomes a human being once it has something we can recognize as a human brain.

Since brain waves can generally be recorded at roughly the beginning of the third trimester, that's a pretty good cutoff date for abortion. We should note, of course, that babies who have been born have passed the beginning of the third trimester. With that in mind, there is NO reasonable justification for killing babies.