On May 16, 2005, at 7:34 PM, JDG wrote:
At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote:The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes "human". The question is what "human" actually means.
If the answer is "homo sapiens" its actually a rather easy question.
It's the easiest answers of which we should often be most suspicious. As I suggested in my note to Dan, extending the epithet "human" to every member of the species is an ideal and nothing more; in reality we barely allow that label to be placed on fellow countrymen with whom we do not agree, let alone other cultures.
The issue of what it is to be human lies at the core of some of our most divisive debates, I think. Abortion, capital punishment, end-of-life issues and elective wars (any elective war, not just the one frequently bandied about here) often, I think, boil down to the basic question of what we mean when we say "human".
(Hmm, an aside -- it occurs to me that perhaps *all* wars are definable as elective. Someone always chooses to attack.)
As an example, unless one believes in the idea of a soul I don't think it's possible to suggest -- realistically -- that many members of this species (by strict definition) are human in many ways.
That sounds callous and brutal, or rather that suggestion can be used to reach callous and brutal conclusions, but unless we analyze what's really meant by our definitions of these seemingly transparent terms, there's no way any kind of discussion can go forward.
The problem as I see it is partly that many *do* believe in the idea of souls, which is -- sorry -- really not much more than superstition. There's never been anything like proof -- nor even evidence of a meaningful nature -- to suggest such a thing as a soul exists. Thus a discussion that begins with assuming the presence of a soul, to me, is based on a false premise.
Is a one-week-old zygote human? Genetically, sure, maybe even potentially. Actually? I don't think the question is so easily answered. Same for someone who's completely brain dead and on life support. Now, how about a third trimester fetus? Or someone in a PVS who appears to evince consciousness in rare and random ways? Those questions should be even more difficult to answer.
What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label "human" applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death?
To complicate things, it is just as just as difficult to answer the question of whether those <entities> Warren named are to be classified as "not human." And if they are, how about the POSs who flew airliners into the WTC? How about anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere who thinks that the US is the Great Satan and/or that Israel has no right to exist? (For that matter, do [many] Jews and Arabs act like they think of each other as human?) How about slaves, who were defined in the US Constitution as counting as 60% of a person? Are they only 60% human? How about the poor or disabled who are a net drain on the economy rather than making a net contribution?
Easy labels are troubling to me. They rarely seem to apply universally when they're analyzed, and for that reason alone I think it's very risky to behave as though such abstractions represent anything but a hint about the way the world "really" is. This further suggests that we should not feel confident enough about those labels to begin using them to make universally-applicable decisions such as laws.
Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of "human", then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances.
Many of us would answer "When there is the slightest doubt, treat them as human." Of course, we still haven't figured out what it means to treat someone as human. Some think that applying the death penalty or going to war is a statement that the condemned prisoner or the enemy is not considered human. Others would say that sometimes human beings choose to commit such evil acts that the only suitable punishment and/or the only way to protect society from them is to take their lives
The other problem I see with such an apparently straightforward definition is that it overlooks the simple truth that we share this planet with several other intelligent species.
Some indeed would argue with the word "other" in that sentence as assuming facts not supported by the evidence. :P
It arrogates to us alone certain traits that we can't be sure don't exist in other organisms, such as self-awareness or consciousness (whatever *that* word means...), and I'm not comfortable personally with applying to h. sapiens alone possession of those traits.
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
