Knowledge and Morality
Kerfuffle in Italy after their high court ruled that a persistently vegetative coma patient could be allowed to die. The Church is of course aghast, and had been firing with all guns at the courts during the long appeal process. But this case exposes the clash of dogma and data.
Church fury as coma woman allowed to die.
A hundred years ago, the woman in question would have been long dead. But our capability of maintaining life also is the capacity to sustain Hell, as the father referred to his life for the past 17 years. And of course there is that tricky beginning-of-life question.
Two hundred years ago, life began at "quickening", when movement was felt. Even a hundred years ago, we did not know anything about DNA, just assumed there was some kind of inheritance mechanism. Now we know more, such as that ova are invaded by spermatozoa, and thus are fertile. But we also know they do not reliably implant, thus fertilizing eggs is both life-creating and life-destroying.
We also know that a range of sexual preference has been around since the dawn of human life, and that at least some aspects of that preference correlate with genes. We know how to (at least clumsily) alter a person to become the gender they feel they really are. But we don't know how to reconcile knowledge with doctrine, to make principles congruent with reality.
When we try to define marriage as between man and woman, we risk absurdities such as prohibiting marriage between transgenders, between women and men with extra chromosomes, and we codify a paradoxical state that tries to say gays are full citizens, wholly legal lovers, but have to remain as mere cohabitors.
When we prohibit abortion we risk absurdities like offering citizen rights to a day-old fetus, holding pregnant women liable for injury to said bundle of cells they might not know is growing, like having to take away a woman's freedom to protect the fetus. We risk the absurdity of holding the fertilized egg supreme, while allowing legal, marriage-sanctioned sex to murder three out of four fertilized ova that do not implant.
The next difficult frontier in morality will be "What is human?" Will we extend that definition to up-trained primates? Artificial intelligences? We will take away that definition for humans without the mental capacity to know there condition? No easy answers. Certainly no help from dogma.
Wow! You raise enough questions to power a philosophy seminar for an entire year!
For myself, I extend "personhood" to all living creatures, and if I could, would extend legal rights to the nonhuman world as well. I think there already is the move in that direction in many jurisdictions.
Animal cruelty laws are a reflection of that. Too bad we didn't make the obvious connection: if we have statutory laws against animal cruelty...why do we allow human torture? But that's another topic.
Hope others weigh in here also.
November 14, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gone with the clock.
November 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not yet! One more rec will save it. Won't someone come and rescue this worthy blog!?!?!
November 14, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
All interesting questions, but none that I have answers to… (Although I am working on that AI one.)
November 14, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will never be agreement on most of these topics.
My high school Jesuit teacher was uncomfortable when one of us asked him whether a catholic country would permit other religions to be practiced but bravely replied "Error can't be given equal standing with the truth".
Maybe for the Catholic Church that position was revised by Vatican 2 but it seems likely that what Mr. Kelly answered reflects what many other religious groups think : that they are obliged to enforce on the rest of society their particular views.
As few things as possible should be 'faith based". That way Savonarola lies.
November 14, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will never be agreement on most of these topics.
My high school Jesuit teacher was uncomfortable when one of us asked him whether a catholic country would permit other religions to be practiced but bravely replied "Error can't be given equal standing with the truth".
Maybe for the Catholic Church that position was revised by Vatican 2 but it seems likely that what Mr. Kelly answered reflects what many other religious groups think : that they are obliged to enforce on the rest of society their particular views.
As few things as possible should be 'faith based". That way Savonarola lies.
November 14, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately Vatican II is a distant memory and the conservatives surged back in control the last three papacies. I remember visiting a trappist abbey that had zafus back a few decades ago! At that time the spirit was very ecumenical....
November 14, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We tried Faith Based Government. Fifteen hundred years of it . Followed by the Faiths(sic) Based Hundred Years War.
The Government should reflect the views of its citizens not of its churches.
November 14, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Prop 8 in California because I want to preserve some language defining marriage as between husband and wife, not Partner 1 and Partner 2. I support civil unions, but I want to be able to be legally married as a wife and husband, not Partner 1 and Partner 2. (Partner 1, you may now kiss Partner 2).
I am against abortion, except in the cases of saving the life of the mother, and/or rape. I do not want my tax dollars used to subsidize abortion. I do not, however, want government to rescind a woman's legal right to make informed choices about her own body. I do think abortion is totally out of control in this country.
I believe the life of an infirmed person should be sustained, but the soul should be allowed to release the body, and not be entrapped by machines, when the patient and family -- as well as their health and spiritual advisors -- have exhausted all reasonable medical remedies to sustain life.
I realize that what is societally reasonable is subject to change with advances in science, however, I think "do no harm" is still a good starting principle of medicine.
I have close friends who differ radically on these positions, and we still find ways to deeply respect one another.
Peace, Tish
November 14, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tish, you make a lot of sense. Good on you!
November 14, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Room to maneuver in there. I'm more interested in the questions than the arguments, these days.
November 14, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Sourcebook in Bioethics for critical public documents in biomedical ethics.
November 14, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
But can't that language be preserved without government interference? Can't someone publish a dictionary that contains all the words whose meaning you want to preserve? Similarly, can't your church still declare you husband and wife? AFAIK, no one has ever lobbied to take that right away from you. It's just a piece of governmental paperwork that has the Partner 1 and Partner 2. Personal and/or religious paperwork is still free to define marriage as being between a man and woman and call you husband and wife.
November 15, 2008 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The state should get out of the Marriage business entirely if it isn't available for all people.
I think that is where this will end. Civil union licenses only. If It is absolutely ridiculous as all get out that some would prevent the joyous union of consenting adults over a word.
Mindboggling, really. Are people really that petty and shallow?
November 15, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Short answer: YES!
November 15, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your point. I do believe in civil unions, where partners are legally protected. I want the legally defined language of marriage between husband and wife to be preserved, as well. On the license, I want the boxes to include Partner 1 and Partner 2, and the boxes to include the option of Husband and Wife. In California, AFAIK, the latter language had been removed. Perhaps an answer is to have both options, and the partners can choose which set of words best defines their union. I think there are some foundations of civil law in the protection of marriage itself.
November 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
But why do it at the exclusion of the other options? Solving that "problem" with Prop 8 is like solving a toothache by having all of your teeth pulled. (Or, possibly more accurately, by having everyone's teeth pulled, as the repercussions of Prop 8 affect others far more than they affect you.)
I think very few people would have a problem with there being alternate forms to choose from. You want to call yourself husband and wife? Choose form B. You want to call yourself partner 1 and partner 2? Choose form A. You want to call yourself wife and wofe? Choose form C.
November 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch, I am very senstitive to dental analogies...
I don't understand what you mean here. Could you please explain? I don't want any teeth pulled. They pulled husband and wife, so I want them implanted back? What are you saying? Could you maybe say it without talking about teeth, though? I had serious dental pain in my life that almost killed me, and morphine couldn't touch it.
Perhaps we don't need any teeth pulled and have agreed about all the options being open?
November 15, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just saying that the "cure" is worse than "the disease". Using this prop to make sure that there's a form available that says "husband and wife" is overkill almost beyond imagination. Having such a form steps on no one's feet and would be relatively easy (as far as such things go) to accomplish without needing a constitutional amendment that is part dictionary. (What next? Are they going to want to insert the definition of "wheel" into the CA constitution?)
November 15, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I pointed out in a previous post, very few gay couples actually want to get married. The movement has suddenly made this their holy grail, and they make a lot of noise, but stats show very few gay couples get married here or abroad when given the chance. The majority of voters do not agree gays have a right to marry, and that's the way it is. We will not be bullied by a vocal minority no matter how loud they get.
November 15, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get used to the idea, as it's only a matter of time. Anti-miscegenation laws were eventually overturned, and eventually gays will be allowed to marry. The majority is not always right. That's one reason why we have the Constitution: to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority".
November 17, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully differ recognizing a vast spectrum of opinions, and cherishing yours.
Bottom line: You amended the state constitution to deny human rights to a segment of society. Great arguments though.
And peace also with you.
November 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully submit this for you to consider:
Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 does not change this.
Peace,
Tish
November 15, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apropos of nothing, I always found the crux of any ethical quandary lay in the methodology one was to use. Are Kantian solutions the best, or are utilitarian ones? That for me is the question.
(This lays aside list-based ethics like those found in religions: i.e. action X is good or bad depending on whether it is on some list of commandments or not.)
Take torture. A utilitarian has no problem with authorizing torture..."Greatest good for the greatest number" is the ruling principle and its okay for one person to suffer (or die) if the payoff is saving dozens or hundreds.
A Kantian has a lot of problems with torture. Since the action is viewed in isolation from its social consequences, the Kantian has to say "no torture" and the ticking bomb scenario doesn't get traction.
November 15, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The next difficult frontier in morality will be "What is human?" Will we extend that definition to up-trained primates? Artificial intelligences? We will take away that definition for humans without the mental capacity to know there condition? No easy answers. Certainly no help from dogma."
Next? What it means to be human is the question of the ages. It is at the heart of every religion, every philosophy. Less than gods; more than beasts. What are we? Why are we? But you probably didn't mean your question that way.
As humans or homo sapiens we share certain historical and biological commonalities. There is no way to instill these in up-trained primates or artificial intellience and no way to take them away from anyone regardless of IQ. No relabeling nor the invention of an entirely new classification system will change that. To even consider it recalls earlier eugenic programs. We all know how those ended. They certainly should have taught us something about morality.
November 15, 2008 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is the anencephalic fetus human? Not really. What eugenics taught us is that we can't decide, ad hoc, who is worthy. Lack of knowledge, or maybe lack of certainty, argues for a generous definition of human. What we should have learned by now about morality is that theories are not morals. Morals may have arisen because of utility, but they are the result of long evolution, not recent hypotheses.
More likely the term I should have used is person, or personhood. When someone is no longer acting in the richly unpredictable, creative way that we see in humans, when they are robotic in their responses or catatonic, we do not give them full rights anymore. We commit them to psychiatric care. Incarcerated criminals have reduced personhood, too.
And if a piece of software could always surprise you, could create, could recognize friends, it would be hard to see it die or be killed. IT might eventually earn personhood, depending on politics and business. )There could be an AI Plessy v Ferguson.)
November 15, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, we have to re-examine what "human" means when it relates to moral dilemmas.
I want to replace the term entirely. We should develop a philosophy of personhood. Who qualifies? It is a little like expanding the voting franchise. From landed white males, to minorities, and finally to women and youths. Who falls under the aegis of our compassion and concern and our sense of right and wrong?
I really think we need to expand it now. And if we do center it on a definition like: "that which can give rise in us of compassion and concern", then we might extend our ethical umbrella out to cover starfish, trees, and the very earth itself.
When we do, we probably will find that there is a deepening of our concern for each others as persons and as humans.
November 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It helps this enterprise if one does not center one's notion of one's truest self as something like "a human, born such and such a time, such and such a place, such and such a race, such and such a gender, such and such a nationality"
As we get older, these sub-categories can become less and less important and less relevant and consequently our true citizenship can expand wider and wider and so too the great web of love we find ourselves in.
November 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think of myself "like" a chicken, but not quite.
November 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if its any reassurance Bwakfat, I like chickens too.
Poached!
November 15, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Life takes many forms. It may be the simple result of energy flowing through a system, and so will be found wherever suitable environments are found if we have the technical ability to percieve it. Bacteria are found deep in the undisturbed crust of the Earth at the bottom of South African gold mines, living very slowly on occasional sulfur compounds. Methane, a compound generated by cows and bacteria is found in the atmosphere of Mars. Methane breaks down from ultraviolet light so we know it is still being generated more likely by bacteria than cows.
Classical Biology used to hold that bacteria were the lower end of the life definition and we humans were the top. Along came the virus particle with some but not all of the qualities needed to define life. That is, it could only replicate by taking over the DNA mechanisim of a host cell and produces millions of new variants to keep CDC guessing what vaccines to produce for each new flu season. Is that a form of life, or some kind of biochemical crystal?
Then came a variant of normal proteins called "prions", to give us mad cow disease. Prions are much less talented than a virus, but somehow exist. One can only wonder what lies beyond our current horizon.
Outside of Biology other forms of life or near life are found. Artificial Intelligence in computer software, corporate personhood as a legal concept and nationalism are fascinating concepts. Corporations have already shown the ability to develop sociopathic tendencies in their survival strategies. Nationalism may very well lead to the end of the species that developed it. It shows characteristics of life, but not intellegent life. Religions seek to extend life beyond this physical level by first teaching and then legislating morality, a clear paradox. Religion and government have become symbioiotic, much like the bacteria and algae that constitute lichens.
Going to a larger level, our planet Earth is a life form of immense complexity. Our Solar system, galaxy, and galaxy cluster progress to the larger horizon, like a set of Russian dolls.
November 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink