JavaRob's Journal: Embryonic Rights, part VI

New entry for continued discussion.

The model at last -- TOC

[cagle_.25]

Hi Rob, Thanks for leaving a blank journal. Sorry to have taxed your patience, but ... well, life is what it is. I hope the patience will be rewarded, at least with the different links provided. The table of contents will be below, linked to the different pieces of the argument, so that you can take them at leisure. I'm going to take a break after this, if that's OK. I have AP Physics students to prepare for their exams, and this has taken up a lot of time (well-spent, I hope) so far. Regards, Je

Re:The model at last -- TOC

[cagle_.25]

The Small Model Table of Contents

Intro to the Small Model [slashdot.org]
Why Not Moral Skepticism or Relativism? [slashdot.org]
The Small Model Begins [slashdot.org]
Rights [slashdot.org]
The Right to Live [slashdot.org]
Biological Considerations [slashdot.org]
Person v. Human Being? [slashdot.org]
Drawing Lines [slashdot.org]
Co-opting Considerations [slashdot.org]
Rights in Tension [slashdot.org]

(The table of contents idea seemed a lot cooler when I first thought of it, but anyway -- here it is).

errata

[cagle_.25]

In the section "Why Not Moral Skepticism or Relativism?", the line

Over against this approach stands everyone working in the field of ethics.

Should read

"Over against this approach stands almost everyone working in the field of ethics."

In point of fact, most modern ethicists are either utilitarian, Kantian, or value ethicists.

In the section "Rights", the line

Individuals called 'psychopaths', whose sense of right and wrong is clearly (and sometimes not so clearly) distorted cause us to question whether st

Confused

[JavaRob]

I have to admit I'm quite confused as I start reading through these posts.

This is largely a reiteration of your argument against abortion... which is fine, and it's nice to get it together all in one place, but this is not the "model" I understood you were working on.

Here's the context in which you explain you're working on your model: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178370&thresho ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=14855167 [slashdot.org]
especially this post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid= [slashdot.org]

The Small Model

[cagle_.25]

The small model seeks to describe human rights using as few assumptions as possible. In this model, it is assumed that our moral compasses point at something, but the exact nature of the something is left undefined. It is assumed that on average, the moral compasses will point in a well-defined direction.* The moral compass can then be used to describe human rights without providing a rigorous defense for the "rightness" of our description. Rather, the description will be evaluated in terms of internal

Why not Moral Skepticism or Relativism?

[cagle_.25]

The first consideration is whether it is worth speaking about morality at all. The moral skeptic notes that

(1) the diversity of opinion around the world concerning morality in particular cases seems to indicate that moral compasses appear to be set at random. He places the burden of proof on any proposed moral system to justify its distinctions between right and wrong in the face of such obvious disagreement among ethical intuitions. He further observes that
(2) moral questions of right and wrong cannot

The Small Model Begins

[cagle_.25]

This is the launching point of the small model. It assumes, without proof beyond the foregoing, that moral compasses point on average in some universal direction. There might be many reasons to account for this fact. The evolutionary model might see ethical intuitions as intuitive understandings developed through natural selection of the types of behaviors likely to lead to the survival of the species. "Right" then consists of acting in a way so as to lead to the survival of the species. Disagreement a

Rights

[cagle_.25]

Traditionally, a "right" is defined as a "justified moral claim" [1 [wikipedia.org]], [2 [stanford.edu]], [3 [www.gnb.ca]]. I'm going to take a complementary approach: By "right" is meant a moral obligation binding on all who fit within the scope of the right. These two definitions are complementary in the sense that if Alice makes a justified moral claim to Bob, then Bob has the moral obligation to honor that claim. Conversely, if Bob owes moral obligation X to Alice, then Alice has a justified claim to X. There are subtle differences, however:

The right to live

[cagle_.25]

The right to live consists of the moral obligation not to exterminate another person. This raises the question: who has this right? Whom am I obligated not to kill? Historically, the obligation not to kill has been recognized as long as we have record. However, that obligation has been subject to considerable exceptions: killing has variously been permitted in time of war, or in self-defense, or judicially, or to avenge honor, or even for no good reason at all if the killer were of sufficiently higher c

Biological Considerations

[cagle_.25]

At the moment of fertilization, the egg (now zygote) rapidly hardens the zona pellucida in order to prevent multiple fertilization events. Within the zona pellucida, the zygote begins to divide from 1 to 2 cells within 24 hours. The division process continues to about 8 cells within another 24 hours, then to the formation of a blastocyst, or embryo, of over 100 cells within another 72 hours. It is this embryo that implants on the uterine wall, the outer portion (trophoblast) forming the placenta and the

Is personhood possibly different from living-hu

[cagle_.25]

Is personhood possibly different from living-human-organismhood?

The forgoing showed that the scientific data are conclusive about a zygote being a living human organism. But now one could question, "Is being a person different from being a living human organism?" Some have alleged that this is the meaningful distinction to make. Mary Anne Warren, for example, alleges [westvalley.edu] that 'human being' (HB) has two senses: HB1 means "full member of the moral community" (and thus possessing rights), and HB2 means "memb

Drawing Lines

[cagle_.25]

Suppose that Warren's is not the only way to divide personhood from being human; that in fact it is reasonable to assert that an embryo becomes a person at some point in its development. How could the line of right-to-live be drawn?

Drawing lines in general is subject to two philosophical problems:

1. arbitrariness occurs when the line is drawn based on personal preference, for ill-founded grounds. An example of arbitrariness is the infamous "literacy test": only those who can pass a literacy test can vote.

Co-Opting Considerations

[cagle_.25]

A co-opting consideration is one that subverts the process of evaluating rights. A goal that one wants to achieve, but is not itself an inherent right, can become a co-opting consideration if it leads one to ignore one's moral obligations; that is, to deny others their rights.

In the case of the right to live, numerous co-opting factors (some mentioned above: respect for authority, desire for money, fear) can lead us to deny others the right to live. In the case of stem-cell research, motives such as the

The Right to Live in tension with the Right to

[cagle_.25]

The Right to Live in tension with the Right to Control One's Body

Notwithstanding all of the forgoing, it might be possible to justify abortion under some circumstances. In addition to the right to live, there is also usually acknowledged a right to be free from violence to one's person. Pregnancy undeniably has many negative physical effects on the mother, some of which are permanent. Could pregnancy be seen as a kind of violence against the mother, which she has a right to resist?

This is the approac