tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post5321509287756293508..comments2023-09-11T08:30:08.843-07:00Comments on Life Training Institute Blog: Regarding PZ Myers' Unsophisticated Diatribe on Kristan Hawkins [Clinton Wilcox]SKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-18165459170893105292015-03-28T09:22:10.623-07:002015-03-28T09:22:10.623-07:00I think that all human beings do have an intrinsic...I think that all human beings do have an intrinsically rational nature by virtue of being human. It's part of human nature. Intrinsic is not necessarily a religious term; all it essentially means is "in and of itself." As an example, there's a difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value. Instrumental value is value placed on it by something outside of itself and is usually used to get you something else. So money is instrumentally valuable. It is only valuable because human beings place value on it, and it is usually used to get you something else, like food and shelter. Happiness, by contrast, is intrinsically valuable, which means its value is found within itself. It is valuable for its own sake. No one uses it to get something else, they seek after it because of its intrinsic value. So when we say that the unborn have an intrinsically rational nature, all that means is that the unborn has within itself the capacity for rational thought. While it is still a zygote, it does not yet have the present capacity for it, but it has the capacity intrinsically otherwise it would never develop it. By contrast, a hedgehog does not have an intrinsic (another word would be inherent) rational nature, so a hedgehog will never, on its own, be able to develop rationality. (I say on its own because philosophers sometimes use as a counterexample a serum that humans might one day develop that could adjust a non-rational animal's brain struct so as to make it rational. But even if this were to ever become a reality, it doesn't follow that something with the inherent rationality is not valuable because of its inherent rationality).<br /><br />Now, you're right in that there are some human beings that are damaged and will never be able to develop rationality as humans. But the thing is that we recognize this as a privation of what they should have. We recognize this is a tragedy specifically because human beings are the kind of thing that should be rational. If my dog never develops the ability to engage in higher thought, no one cares because dogs are not the kind of thing that are supposed to be rational. It's not tragic. But it *is* tragic when a human being fails to develop it, because we recognize that it *should*. This doesn't mean the inherent capacity isn't there, it just means it's being blocked by some external factor (disease, brain damage, not developing the proper hardware (brain), etc.).<br /><br />8) Actually, those are correct and they are how I intended it. Abortion was made illegal in 1973. There were a few states that started to legalize it in some instances prior to 1973, but abortion has always been seen as murder of an innocent human person prior to 1973, and has been illegal in 800 years of English common law and 200 years of United States common law. Additionally, it wasn't until the mid-20th century that a movement of pro-choice people rose up to try and get it legalized. Prior to that, by most lay people, doctors, and scientists, abortion had been seen as murder of a human being, and it was heavily looked down upon by society and by the medical profession. Specifically, I'd recommend checking out the book Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History by Joseph Dellapenna for more on this.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-35124792212403328852015-03-28T09:21:41.153-07:002015-03-28T09:21:41.153-07:005) This doesn't result from an ignorance of bi...5) This doesn't result from an ignorance of biology. It's just a case of not being careful enough with your words. They could just eliminate "moment of" and make the same exact case. Even if we're not entirely sure when during fertilization a new human being emerges, we know for sure there is one once conception completes. Plus, pro-choice people are often ignorant of biology (denying that human life begins at fertilization, which is attested to by all embryologists), and using obviously scientifically inaccurate terms like "fertilized egg" and "pre-embryo." I would hope Myers would decry those pro-choice people with the same fervor he decries those pro-life people.<br /><br />6) You might be thinking of the fallacy of composition here.<br /><br />7) "[NOTE: There is an issue here that will often separate the religious and atheist prolifers like you and I. I don't accept that merely being a human organism means that you have an intrinsic rational nature granting it rights &/or moral status. Some human organisms lack the ability to develop into rational beings, and therefore in my view, lack any right to life. Human organisms that canbnever get beyond infant level intelligence don't have intrinsic rational capacities unless 'intrinsic' is a way to sneak in something theological (or at the very least something not compatible with a materialistic or naturalistic ontology). Incidentally, some of your language made me a bit uncomfortable because the terminology was Aristotelian/Thomistic, which sets off alarm bells for some people. Other than with the severe coghitive disability cases, you can still make the same arguments with different terminol8gy that's more modern (and that won't be familiar to some people primarily from discussions of transubstantion and the sinfulness of non-reproductive sex). Really, the argument won't change, but using different language sometimes can mean the difference between getting a fair hearing and someone just reflexively tuning you out.]"<br /><br />Well, yes, I am Aristotelian/Thomistic in my metaphysical view of the world. I'm also not Catholic. I would hope that someone who might not take religion seriously would at least take Aristotle seriously, since the Greeks laid the bedrock of modern thought. But if someone refuses to take me seriously because of my view of metaphysics, the problem is with them, not with me. I can't just change my view of the world to make someone more comfortable, and if atheists are truly searching for truth, as they claim, then it's disingenuous to tune someone out just because they are religious, especially if they are using arguments that can appeal to atheistic intuitions.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-70537365809900083622015-03-28T09:05:42.230-07:002015-03-28T09:05:42.230-07:00Hi, Ockraz. I have a few responses and thoughts he...Hi, Ockraz. I have a few responses and thoughts here:<br /><br />Good to see that we're pretty much in agreement on Myers. I don't think he's worth interacting with, but in this case he's personally gone after a pro-life advocate.<br /><br />1) "I accept the consensus view of what it is that's based upon its historical use and concerned with cognitive attributes."<br /><br />There actually is no consensus view. This is one of the weaknesses of the pro-choice position, in that pro-choice philosophers can't seem to make up their mind what properties make up persons and what don't (you'll receive different criteria from different philosophers). Plus, even the functionalist view isn't the consensus view, as you have pro-choice people who argue from bodily rights and not functionalism (such as Judith Jarvis Thomson). Additionally, your argument here assumes that there are no pro-life philosophers, but this is clearly false (e.g. Frank Beckwith, Christopher Kaczor, Alex Pruss, etc., who reject functionalist views and argue that personhood is established at fertilization). Finally, the functionalist view is actually a misinterpretation of John Locke's discussion about personhood. He argued that a person is someone who exhibits these properties, but he wasn't speaking in terms of what personhood is, just mainly why it is only persons who can be held morally responsible for their actions.<br /><br />2) I actually didn't know that Myers believes infants are not persons. At least that's consistent, as that's where functionalism gets you (which is why philosophers like Tooley and Singer argue for infanticide).<br /><br />4) I'm not actually sure, off-hand. It's just what I've been told by other pro-life people. And David Boonin, in his book A Defense of Abortion, says that pro-choice philosophers generally think Marquis' argument is the strnogest pro-life argument because it doesn't rely on religious assumptions (although I would say that Boonin is mistaken on general pro-life arguments, as I think the general pro-life arguments rest on assumptions that non-religious people share). You could possibly try to google Marquis and see what comes up. One website I found, from a blog called SkepticInk, mentions Marquis' "Atheistic Argument Against Abortion", but his response to Marquis' argument is terrible.Clinton Wilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-23429179918781473602015-03-18T09:35:36.500-07:002015-03-18T09:35:36.500-07:005. Two points about his incredulousness about eggs...5. Two points about his incredulousness about eggs and zygotes. I didn't read his article this time, but often he's made a fuss about prolifers' supposed ignorance of biology based on their saying the "the moment of conception." He's right that fertilization/syngamy isn't instantaneous - although that's irrelevant to the larger discussion.<br /> <br />6. It's not just that he's wrong in terms of biology. Claiming that because 'fertilized egg' is a meaningful term, and that it refers to real things, that therefore one can conclude that the referent specified by the label is an egg - that is actually a particular kind of logical error. I'm afraid that I've forgotten the name, though. <br /><br />7. He obviously knows the tumor thing is a straw man. I think it was Kristine who pointed out that in the instances where a prolifer states things so that tumors qualify, that's merely an oversight. We're all talking about human organisms even if some people omit the word. He responded with crazy nonsense - whether a zygote is an organism is fuzzy'unclear (?!) and using "human organism" as a criterion for rights is wrong because racists and Nazis did it (!!!) Someone should reallyctell him to check out the historical use of personhood as a criterion. LOL<br /><br />[NOTE: There is an issue here that will often separate the religious and atheist prolifers like you and I. I don't accept that merely being a human organism means that you have an intrinsic rational nature granting it rights &/or moral status. Some human organisms lack the ability to develop into rational beings, and therefore in my view, lack any right to life. Human organisms that canbnever get beyond infant level intelligence don't have intrinsic rational capacities unless 'intrinsic' is a way to sneak in something theological (or at the very least something not compatible with a materialistic or naturalistic ontology). Incidentally, some of your language made me a bit uncomfortable because the terminology was Aristotelian/Thomistic, which sets off alarm bells for some people. Other than with the severe coghitive disability cases, you can still make the same arguments with different terminol8gy that's more modern (and that won't be familiar to some people primarily from discussions of transubstantion and the sinfulness of non-reproductive sex). Really, the argument won't change, but using different language sometimes can mean the difference between getting a fair hearing and someone just reflexively tuning you out.]<br /><br />8. You've got a typo here: "As it was before abortion was made illegal in 1973"<br />and another here: "there were always pro-life advocates who cared about the abortion issue (though it wasn't until the late 20th century that a movement started to emerge to liberalize the United States' abortion laws)." You seem accidentally to have said the reverse of what you intended.ockrazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07681138753527454144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-28855476831281119732015-03-18T08:56:30.965-07:002015-03-18T08:56:30.965-07:001. Absolutely right: it's actually its PZ who ...1. Absolutely right: it's actually its PZ who always begs the question. <br /><br />[NOTE: Obviously, I disagree with your view about how to define personhood. I accept the consensus view of what it is that's based upon its historical use and concerned with cognitive attributes.]<br /><br />He begs the question every damn time he addresses this topic because he ALWAYS asserts/assumes that personhood is what differentiates right possessing entities from entities without rights. Whether or not that's true is the question being debated. What he''s doing is a textbook case of begging the argument.<br /><br />2. The fuzziness thing is IMHO a deliberate dodge. He says that he can't tell precisely where the line is, but that doesn't mean it's possible for it to be at 8-12 weeks LMP. That's reasonable, and I actually agree. However, by dodging any concrete definition he can (usually, especially since he's generally preaching to the New Atheist choir) avoid being confronted with the obvious objections to using personhood as a precondition for possessing rights.<br /><br />At first I thought it might just be a (from his POV) lucky accident of his being just obtuse about personhood and how it relates to ethics, but then I saw something he wrote where he conceded that newborns most definitely lack personhood. Well gee, it's funny that when attacking pro-life views he constantly emphasizes that aborted prenates definitely aren't persons, but IMPLIES that there's fuzziness soon after. He damn well KNOWS that infants aren't persons. (The 'fuzziness' is which sort of toddlers qualify.)<br /><br />3. He is either a) carefully concealing a Tooley view because he knows most people would be appalled and be forced to question themselves if they intuitively agree with him on abortion, OR g) he's actually begging the question by asserting a conclusion without support which he himself believes to be false. Either way he's a dishonest ass. My label for him is just another of the 'E-Z Liars.'<br /><br />4. Can you source the claim that Marquis is an atheist? I've heard Kristine K say that too, but not seen it elsewhere. I'm concerned she may have jumped to a wrong conclusion based on his being labeled a "secular philosopher" (ie, assuming that meant he's a philosopher who's a secularist rather than that he's someone whose field of study is secular philosophy). I hope I'm wrong, but I've never seen anything that addressed whether he's a theist or not.)<br />ockrazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07681138753527454144noreply@blogger.com