Administrator2
New Member
HELEN
Cleaning out a month's worth of emails. This one just came in within the hour. Comments:
=========
http://slate.msn.com//?id=2059090
The Too-Weak Rule
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 2:52 PM PT
A new line has been drawn in the debate over when life begins. The
line is called gastrulation. It takes place about two weeks after
conception, when the embryonic mass begins to organize itself into
layers, forming the first outline of an organism—or, in the case of
twins, two organisms. Advocates of human cloning are drawing this
line in order to avoid the abortion debate. Prior to gastrulation,
they argue, the developing cluster of human cells can't be a person,
since it hasn't clarified whether it will become one organism or two.
The argument is clever and attractive. But it's being dissolved by
the very technology it's supposed to promote.
Last weekend, Michael West, the CEO of Advanced Cell Technology,
announced that his company had created the first cloned human embryo.
The purpose, West explained, was to develop cures for diseases. On
Meet the Press, West argued that since ACT plans to destroy its
cloned embryos before gastrulation, "Scientifically, the entities
we're creating are not an individual." On Late Edition, he
elaborated:
We're talking about making human cellular life, not a human life. A
human life, we know scientifically, begins upwards, even into two
weeks of human development, where this little ball of cells
decides, "I'm going to become one person," or "I am going to be two
persons." It hasn't yet decided. No cells of the body of any kind
exist in this little ball of cells. And that's as far as we believe
it's appropriate to go in applying cloning to medicine.
West is trying to solve what he calls the "slippery slope" problem.
He wants to erase the moral line pro-lifers have drawn at conception.
On the other hand, he wants to assure us that the line can be redrawn
nearby. "Almost all views holding that human life begins at
conception maintain that this is the moment when a new and unique
human individual comes into being," West and his ACT colleagues wrote
a year ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This
isn't true, they argued. "Developmental individuality, which is
central to personhood, is not attained until the primitive body axis
has begun to form" during gastrulation. Therefore, society can permit
destructive research on pre-gastrulation embryos without sliding
toward destructive research on more advanced embryos. "The line
established by gastrulation and the appearance of the primitive
streak is a clear one," West and his collaborators asserted. "It is
unlikely that researchers working in properly monitored environments
will blur these distinctions."
Too late. The distinctions are already blurred. West agrees with pro-
lifers that personhood prior to birth is defined by two things:
totipotentiality—the ability to become a whole organism—and the
resolution of individuality. He merely disagrees about the moment at
which that combination occurs. But in the age of cloning, both
standards lose their significance. Every cell is totipotent, and
individuality is never resolved.
West succeeds in the destructive half of his philosophical mission,
erasing the line at conception. In cloning—somatic cell nuclear
transfer—the nucleus of an egg cell is removed and replaced by a
nucleus taken from a body cell. The product of this union, when
incubated, begins to grow into an organism genetically identical
(with the trivial exception of non-nuclear DNA) to the organism from
which its nucleus was taken. It lacks the genetic uniqueness by which
pro-lifers have traditionally defined personhood.
So pro-lifers turn to the second criterion: totipotentiality. The
newly formed entity is a person, they argue, because it has all the
ingredients necessary to form a human being. Implant it in a womb,
and it will become a baby. But with cloning, this is true of any
cell. Put its nucleus in an enucleated egg, implant it, and it will
become a baby. Soon, the egg's hosting services may be unnecessary.
According to U.S. News & World Report, ACT has filed for a patent on
the reverse technique, in which the egg's proteins are injected into
the body cell. "Research advances are making all
cells 'embryonic,' "ACT Vice President Robert Lanza explained to U.S.
News. Consequently, totipotentiality is no longer a meaningful
standard of personhood. "To commit ourselves morally to protecting
every living cell in the body would be insane," Ronald Green, ACT's
chief ethicist, told the magazine.
The reason this breakthrough won't lead to moral chaos, according to
West, Lanza, and Green, is that gastrulation establishes a new
threshold of individuality. You can kill an embryo at one week,
because you don't know how many people it will become. But you can't
kill it at three weeks, since at that point the question has been
resolved.
Except it hasn't. That's the unintended lesson of ACT's experiment.
The donor of the cloned nucleus, a 40-year-old doctor named Judson
Somerville, says an Episcopal bishop assured him that the project
wouldn't constitute the creation and killing of life, because the
clone was simply an extension of himself. "These are my cells being
multiplied in a lab, not those of some other human being," Somerville
told U.S. News. So, the question that emerged as the clone began to
grow wasn't whether it would become one person or two. The question
was whether it would become the second Judson Somerville or the
second and third. Forty years after the original Somerville "cells"
crossed the gastrulation line, we still don't know how many people
they'll become. As long as you're shedding cells, the same is true of
you. The era of conclusive individuality is over.
The erasure of the moral significance of the gastrulation line
doesn't end the debate over cloning. But it does collapse the wall
that West and his colleagues tried to erect between the cloning
debate and the abortion debate. To justify their research, they'll
have to fall back on arguments about the early embryo's incapacity
for thoughts, feelings, or experiences. Meanwhile, pro-lifers will
have to explain why a newly conceived embryo is precious if neither
its genome nor its totipotentiality is unique. All of us will have to
figure out how old values, by absorbing new realities, can re-
establish moral boundaries along the continuum of life. It's not the
end of the world. It's not the beginning, either.
POIKILOTHERM\poikilotherm
That's an interesting post Helen. Utterly irrelevant to the scientific merits of the notion of common descent, but interesting nonetheless. Thanks.
HELEN
Actually, Poik, I think it is highly relevant. If we are simply evolved animals, then there is no need to fuss more about cloning humans than about cloning sheep or frogs or whatever.
If, however, we are special creations by God, individually designed, loved, and accountable, then there is a real problem with human cloning. This is very much an evolution/creation issue in this regard.
POIKILOTHERM
Non-sequiteur. Non-human animals form social bonds and act to defend both their young and their social group from threats. There area variety of problems with cloning that have nothing to do with spiritual issues, but have to do with issues of ethics and law. Ethics itself (BTW) need not be viewed as a spiritual issue: it can simply be a reflection of the human tendency to form large extended social groups. So, no I don't think that viewing cloning as problematic is at all relevant to the notion of whether we are evolved from quadrupeds or not.
If we evolved from apes I cannot see how our responsibilities to each other or to G-d would be any less. I don't follow your logic at all. I suspect it all hinges on an all-or-none notion of Biblical Literalism=Truth. I'm afraid I don't see the need for such a notion.
JESTERHOLE
Let's look at it your way. If cloning isn't part of god's plan, it won't happen. If it is, it will.
HELEN
I'm afraid that's not 'my way', Jester. God has given us dominion over the earth and free will. The one proviso is that He will not allow an expression of man's heart as action unless it can be of benefit to those who love Him in one way or another (Romans 8:28). However, His will is clearly stated by Peter as not wanting anyone to perish (the text is regarding spiritual death), and yet only those who look to Christ receive life. It seems from your own post that you are defying God's will. That does not negate that it IS His will, only that He has given you the freedom to defy it.
Poik, on what do you base ethics if not something that is not natural? You said the cloning issues had more to do with ethical and legal considerations. Where do you think those considerations came from? I disagree with you that ethics is simply a result of a biological drive to form social groups. There are plenty of examples of very complex social groups in the animal kingdom, but ethics is never a part of any of them. Ethics requires abstractions and abstract communication. It is unique to humans. Laws based on values are also unique to humans. Laws among the animal kingdom are instinctive and instinctively followed. There is a world of difference.
However, I understand your point of view as a matter of materialistic naturalism and its resultant dependency on evolution. But this question regarding cloning is of vital interest to those of other persuasions.
POIKILOTHERM
Actually, I didn't say that. I said that cloning has issues other than spiritual ones associated with it. Me, I think that human cloning is a moral abomination. I just never said so, 'cause I don't think its relevant to the scientific validity of the notion of common descent.
Where do you think those considerations came from? … Laws among the animal kingdom are instinctive and instinctively followed. There is a world of difference.
Those are interesting assertions, but are you quite sure that valuing (say) honesty is not taught among the great apes? What data do you have on primate or dolphin groups in the wild to support such a contention? More importantly, how would you test it? Please remember that you would not be testing for human ethics, but an ethical system in general.
I would wager that there isn't good data to support your contention, though I could certainly be wrong. There is certainly a lot of evidence for transmission of cultural traits between animal groups, and I am not at all sure what you mean by "just instinct".
I would hardly classify my point of view as materialistic naturalism. Is that really what you are trying to say?
FROGGIE
Actually, Poik, I think it is highly relevant. If we are simply evolved animals, then there is no need to fuss more about cloning humans than about cloning sheep or frogs or whatever.
If, however, we are special creations by God, individually designed, loved, and accountable, then there is a real problem with human cloning. This is very much an evolution/creation issue in this regard.
Wow, I wonder what is preventing me and all my friends at infidels from just acting like apes and throwing feces all over and running around naked, since we all accept the theory of evolution?
HELEN
You are mocking without saying much. The following might be of interest: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111/opinion/wiker.html
It's entitled "Darwin and the Descent of Morality"
Poik, how do you define ethics or morality without referencing humans, please?
FROGGIE
Once again,
You see, many atheiests/agnostics/secular humanist types just don't put as much stock into the ramblings of old dead guys like you do. Darwin had some great observations, and some interesting things to say. But he was a human, and he had some biases and slants due to the culture he was raised in.
I still don't see what this has to do with human cloning. Also, you cannot make the assumption that all scientists or atheists (and no they are not the same thing) are for it. That is simply not true
HELEN
Froggie and all,
Why don't you leave arguing about the legitimacy of this subject and allow people (or yourselves) to discuss the subject actually brought up in the article?
Let's assume that if the moderator(s) leave it up they figure it is relevant, OK?
FROGGIE
Hey I'm reading a Francis Fukuyama book right now! I like his (her?) book. Has some pretty bad stuff to say about Christianity though. At any rate. . . Just because something is found out to be 'natural,' does not make it moral.
Some of the most deadly toxins are 'natural.' It hardly means we should all drink them! Most people probably think that morality supersedes and is above naturalism. We need moral codes because natural law is not good enough.
[from the link] For Darwin the “moral faculties of man” were not original and inherent, but evolved from “social qualities” acquired “through natural selection, aided by inherited habit.” Just as life came from the nonliving, so also the moral came from the nonmoral.
I would say 'amoral' but oh well. No problems so far. . .
From the beginning, then, Darwin rejected the Christian natural law argument, according to which human beings are moral by nature. [/I]
I thought the Christian argument assumed we are immoral by nature.
Instead, he followed the pattern of the modern natural right reasoning of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which assumed that human beings were naturally asocial and amoral, and only became social and moral historically. That is why Darwin called his account a natural history of morality.
I'd buy that.
For Darwin, in order to become moral we first had to become social. “In order that primeval men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should have become social,” Darwin reasoned, “they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel other animals to live in a body.” As with all animal instincts, the “social instincts” of man were the result of variations bringing some benefit for survival.
No problems yet.
What we call “conscience” was also the result of natural selection. Darwin described it as a “feeling of dissatisfaction which invariably results . . . from any unsatisfied instinct.”
Not sure I totally agree with his description. I agree with the first part. You see, I used to be a Christian (yes, a true christian, Helen so don't even start). I thought my morality and conscience came from believing in God and Jesus. Now that I'm an atheist, I am pretty much the same person-silly, logical, and I care too much about the world sometimes. So for me, obviously my conscience/morality did not come from my religious beliefs, I just thought they did.
Such feelings of unease, Darwin explained, we now call “conscience.”
I think where they came from is not as important as how they work today. I don't need to believe in your definition of God to value human life. How do I know? I am now an atheist, but I still value human life. The whole month of September pretty much sucked for me (after the 11 that is). Yet certain people here would like to believe that I have no morals. Whatever.
If . . . men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters;
I wonder if Darwin would have held these same views if he had known about genetics and read up on the latest views about social altruism. My guess--these discoveries would have dramatically changed his views.
Yet Darwin balked at embracing the relativism he created, and insisted on ranking evolved moral traits. The unhappy result, however, was his espousal of views we would today call racist, and his justification of a program of eugenics.
And that was his mistake, not mine. See--I believe in his data, but not all of his conclusions.
Ranking evolved moral traits meant ranking the races accordingly. [...]Thus Darwin cheerfully asserted that the “western nations of Europe immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization.”
And he was wrong.
As a member of the favored race, Darwin embraced a typically nineteenth-century view of moral progress.
Which most people no longer hold today. Your point exactly? I fail to see what this has to do with evolution. If anything, this entire essay is a treatise on how humans, even when faced with evidence to the contrary, can hold on to incorrect beliefs and biases. Much of Darwins' data is now used by scientists to discredit racism and the whole idea that races even exist.
But the engine of evolution, even moral evolution, is natural selection.
But people have always differed on what they consider to be 'moral.' So even accepting ToE, people are still going to have differing opinions on what that all means.
With man we see similar facts.” Since different races, like different breeds of dogs or horses, develop different capacities
See above. We know now that much of intelligence and qualities is due to social upbringing. People were racist back then first. They used whatever they could to justify it, whether it was the Bible or the Descent of Man.
What is your point?
In the end, he was unsure whether to rank the races “as species or sub-species” but finally asserted that “the latter term appears the most appropriate.”
And I don't think you could find any legitamite scientists today who would agree with that, and that use evolutionary biology to back it up. However, I can point you to several different groups who promote racism who use the Bible as proof.
What may we gather from Darwin’s evolutionary account of morality? To begin with, Darwin rightly understood that bare sociality allowed for a startling variety of moralities.
I disagree-I think evolution can explain why we are the way we are. But it should not be used to justify it. This would be akin to you saying, "I'm a sinner because of Adam and Eve, therefore it's ok for me to sin!" I don't think so.
In contrast to the very determinate list of requisite virtues, definite commands, and established ends in the traditional natural law account
Yeah right. The baptists on this forum can't even all agree on this 'determinite' list (although I think that's a good thing). I think many Christians are under a false illusion of having objective morality.
evolution brings forth many different modes of group survival. Just as male lions, when taking over a pride, kill the young [...]
Yes this is true. Evolution does explain why humans can be awful creatures. This is a main reason why I want people to accept the theory and study it, so maybe we can understand our violent ways and possibly correct them. Every time I watch a discovery show about chimps and bonobos, I am shocked. I mean, yeah I believe in evolution but the similarities are alarming and eerie! I think 1 in 3 male chimps die from other chimps hands (fighting over territory). Then I switch to CNN and hear the latest wars in the middle east or N ireland. Yes I agree-we did evolve from chimps and it kind of sucks that we did.[/I]
so also many human societies have survived for hundreds of years by exposing their unwanted and deformed babies.
Yes, despite having religion and despite not beleiving in ToE. Hmmm. . .
Although many today would shudder at Darwin’s racism, we must concede that Darwin’s conclusions were correctly drawn from his evolutionary principles. If evolution is true, and the races themselves are the result of the struggle to survive
Evolution IS true, and there is no such thing as real human 'races' or sub-species. So the rest of the argument is completely invalid. Anthropologists have done much to help eradicte racism and racist ideas. Do you know how many Baptist churches felt about racism and segregation the 1950's? That's much more recent than Darwin.[/I]
As for the survival of the fittest, contemporary liberals have attempted to separate Darwin from Social Darwinism, but Darwin’s own words advocating severe struggle show us quite clearly that he was the first Social Darwinist.
So what! Like I said earlier, some of us don't put as much value and stock into the ramblings of old dead guys like you do! That's the beauty about the body of scientific knowledge-it can change and grow as we discover more about ourselves. Unfortunately, the Bible does not change and grow.
Interesting article though. I'll have to finish that Fukyama book sometime when I have time.
[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]
Cleaning out a month's worth of emails. This one just came in within the hour. Comments:
=========
http://slate.msn.com//?id=2059090
The Too-Weak Rule
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 2:52 PM PT
A new line has been drawn in the debate over when life begins. The
line is called gastrulation. It takes place about two weeks after
conception, when the embryonic mass begins to organize itself into
layers, forming the first outline of an organism—or, in the case of
twins, two organisms. Advocates of human cloning are drawing this
line in order to avoid the abortion debate. Prior to gastrulation,
they argue, the developing cluster of human cells can't be a person,
since it hasn't clarified whether it will become one organism or two.
The argument is clever and attractive. But it's being dissolved by
the very technology it's supposed to promote.
Last weekend, Michael West, the CEO of Advanced Cell Technology,
announced that his company had created the first cloned human embryo.
The purpose, West explained, was to develop cures for diseases. On
Meet the Press, West argued that since ACT plans to destroy its
cloned embryos before gastrulation, "Scientifically, the entities
we're creating are not an individual." On Late Edition, he
elaborated:
We're talking about making human cellular life, not a human life. A
human life, we know scientifically, begins upwards, even into two
weeks of human development, where this little ball of cells
decides, "I'm going to become one person," or "I am going to be two
persons." It hasn't yet decided. No cells of the body of any kind
exist in this little ball of cells. And that's as far as we believe
it's appropriate to go in applying cloning to medicine.
West is trying to solve what he calls the "slippery slope" problem.
He wants to erase the moral line pro-lifers have drawn at conception.
On the other hand, he wants to assure us that the line can be redrawn
nearby. "Almost all views holding that human life begins at
conception maintain that this is the moment when a new and unique
human individual comes into being," West and his ACT colleagues wrote
a year ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This
isn't true, they argued. "Developmental individuality, which is
central to personhood, is not attained until the primitive body axis
has begun to form" during gastrulation. Therefore, society can permit
destructive research on pre-gastrulation embryos without sliding
toward destructive research on more advanced embryos. "The line
established by gastrulation and the appearance of the primitive
streak is a clear one," West and his collaborators asserted. "It is
unlikely that researchers working in properly monitored environments
will blur these distinctions."
Too late. The distinctions are already blurred. West agrees with pro-
lifers that personhood prior to birth is defined by two things:
totipotentiality—the ability to become a whole organism—and the
resolution of individuality. He merely disagrees about the moment at
which that combination occurs. But in the age of cloning, both
standards lose their significance. Every cell is totipotent, and
individuality is never resolved.
West succeeds in the destructive half of his philosophical mission,
erasing the line at conception. In cloning—somatic cell nuclear
transfer—the nucleus of an egg cell is removed and replaced by a
nucleus taken from a body cell. The product of this union, when
incubated, begins to grow into an organism genetically identical
(with the trivial exception of non-nuclear DNA) to the organism from
which its nucleus was taken. It lacks the genetic uniqueness by which
pro-lifers have traditionally defined personhood.
So pro-lifers turn to the second criterion: totipotentiality. The
newly formed entity is a person, they argue, because it has all the
ingredients necessary to form a human being. Implant it in a womb,
and it will become a baby. But with cloning, this is true of any
cell. Put its nucleus in an enucleated egg, implant it, and it will
become a baby. Soon, the egg's hosting services may be unnecessary.
According to U.S. News & World Report, ACT has filed for a patent on
the reverse technique, in which the egg's proteins are injected into
the body cell. "Research advances are making all
cells 'embryonic,' "ACT Vice President Robert Lanza explained to U.S.
News. Consequently, totipotentiality is no longer a meaningful
standard of personhood. "To commit ourselves morally to protecting
every living cell in the body would be insane," Ronald Green, ACT's
chief ethicist, told the magazine.
The reason this breakthrough won't lead to moral chaos, according to
West, Lanza, and Green, is that gastrulation establishes a new
threshold of individuality. You can kill an embryo at one week,
because you don't know how many people it will become. But you can't
kill it at three weeks, since at that point the question has been
resolved.
Except it hasn't. That's the unintended lesson of ACT's experiment.
The donor of the cloned nucleus, a 40-year-old doctor named Judson
Somerville, says an Episcopal bishop assured him that the project
wouldn't constitute the creation and killing of life, because the
clone was simply an extension of himself. "These are my cells being
multiplied in a lab, not those of some other human being," Somerville
told U.S. News. So, the question that emerged as the clone began to
grow wasn't whether it would become one person or two. The question
was whether it would become the second Judson Somerville or the
second and third. Forty years after the original Somerville "cells"
crossed the gastrulation line, we still don't know how many people
they'll become. As long as you're shedding cells, the same is true of
you. The era of conclusive individuality is over.
The erasure of the moral significance of the gastrulation line
doesn't end the debate over cloning. But it does collapse the wall
that West and his colleagues tried to erect between the cloning
debate and the abortion debate. To justify their research, they'll
have to fall back on arguments about the early embryo's incapacity
for thoughts, feelings, or experiences. Meanwhile, pro-lifers will
have to explain why a newly conceived embryo is precious if neither
its genome nor its totipotentiality is unique. All of us will have to
figure out how old values, by absorbing new realities, can re-
establish moral boundaries along the continuum of life. It's not the
end of the world. It's not the beginning, either.
POIKILOTHERM\poikilotherm
That's an interesting post Helen. Utterly irrelevant to the scientific merits of the notion of common descent, but interesting nonetheless. Thanks.
HELEN
Actually, Poik, I think it is highly relevant. If we are simply evolved animals, then there is no need to fuss more about cloning humans than about cloning sheep or frogs or whatever.
If, however, we are special creations by God, individually designed, loved, and accountable, then there is a real problem with human cloning. This is very much an evolution/creation issue in this regard.
POIKILOTHERM
Non-sequiteur. Non-human animals form social bonds and act to defend both their young and their social group from threats. There area variety of problems with cloning that have nothing to do with spiritual issues, but have to do with issues of ethics and law. Ethics itself (BTW) need not be viewed as a spiritual issue: it can simply be a reflection of the human tendency to form large extended social groups. So, no I don't think that viewing cloning as problematic is at all relevant to the notion of whether we are evolved from quadrupeds or not.
If we evolved from apes I cannot see how our responsibilities to each other or to G-d would be any less. I don't follow your logic at all. I suspect it all hinges on an all-or-none notion of Biblical Literalism=Truth. I'm afraid I don't see the need for such a notion.
JESTERHOLE
Let's look at it your way. If cloning isn't part of god's plan, it won't happen. If it is, it will.
HELEN
I'm afraid that's not 'my way', Jester. God has given us dominion over the earth and free will. The one proviso is that He will not allow an expression of man's heart as action unless it can be of benefit to those who love Him in one way or another (Romans 8:28). However, His will is clearly stated by Peter as not wanting anyone to perish (the text is regarding spiritual death), and yet only those who look to Christ receive life. It seems from your own post that you are defying God's will. That does not negate that it IS His will, only that He has given you the freedom to defy it.
Poik, on what do you base ethics if not something that is not natural? You said the cloning issues had more to do with ethical and legal considerations. Where do you think those considerations came from? I disagree with you that ethics is simply a result of a biological drive to form social groups. There are plenty of examples of very complex social groups in the animal kingdom, but ethics is never a part of any of them. Ethics requires abstractions and abstract communication. It is unique to humans. Laws based on values are also unique to humans. Laws among the animal kingdom are instinctive and instinctively followed. There is a world of difference.
However, I understand your point of view as a matter of materialistic naturalism and its resultant dependency on evolution. But this question regarding cloning is of vital interest to those of other persuasions.
POIKILOTHERM
Actually, I didn't say that. I said that cloning has issues other than spiritual ones associated with it. Me, I think that human cloning is a moral abomination. I just never said so, 'cause I don't think its relevant to the scientific validity of the notion of common descent.
Where do you think those considerations came from? … Laws among the animal kingdom are instinctive and instinctively followed. There is a world of difference.
Those are interesting assertions, but are you quite sure that valuing (say) honesty is not taught among the great apes? What data do you have on primate or dolphin groups in the wild to support such a contention? More importantly, how would you test it? Please remember that you would not be testing for human ethics, but an ethical system in general.
I would wager that there isn't good data to support your contention, though I could certainly be wrong. There is certainly a lot of evidence for transmission of cultural traits between animal groups, and I am not at all sure what you mean by "just instinct".
I would hardly classify my point of view as materialistic naturalism. Is that really what you are trying to say?
FROGGIE
Actually, Poik, I think it is highly relevant. If we are simply evolved animals, then there is no need to fuss more about cloning humans than about cloning sheep or frogs or whatever.
If, however, we are special creations by God, individually designed, loved, and accountable, then there is a real problem with human cloning. This is very much an evolution/creation issue in this regard.
Wow, I wonder what is preventing me and all my friends at infidels from just acting like apes and throwing feces all over and running around naked, since we all accept the theory of evolution?
HELEN
You are mocking without saying much. The following might be of interest: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111/opinion/wiker.html
It's entitled "Darwin and the Descent of Morality"
Poik, how do you define ethics or morality without referencing humans, please?
FROGGIE
Once again,
You see, many atheiests/agnostics/secular humanist types just don't put as much stock into the ramblings of old dead guys like you do. Darwin had some great observations, and some interesting things to say. But he was a human, and he had some biases and slants due to the culture he was raised in.
I still don't see what this has to do with human cloning. Also, you cannot make the assumption that all scientists or atheists (and no they are not the same thing) are for it. That is simply not true
HELEN
Froggie and all,
Why don't you leave arguing about the legitimacy of this subject and allow people (or yourselves) to discuss the subject actually brought up in the article?
Let's assume that if the moderator(s) leave it up they figure it is relevant, OK?
FROGGIE
Hey I'm reading a Francis Fukuyama book right now! I like his (her?) book. Has some pretty bad stuff to say about Christianity though. At any rate. . . Just because something is found out to be 'natural,' does not make it moral.
Some of the most deadly toxins are 'natural.' It hardly means we should all drink them! Most people probably think that morality supersedes and is above naturalism. We need moral codes because natural law is not good enough.
[from the link] For Darwin the “moral faculties of man” were not original and inherent, but evolved from “social qualities” acquired “through natural selection, aided by inherited habit.” Just as life came from the nonliving, so also the moral came from the nonmoral.
I would say 'amoral' but oh well. No problems so far. . .
From the beginning, then, Darwin rejected the Christian natural law argument, according to which human beings are moral by nature. [/I]
I thought the Christian argument assumed we are immoral by nature.
Instead, he followed the pattern of the modern natural right reasoning of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which assumed that human beings were naturally asocial and amoral, and only became social and moral historically. That is why Darwin called his account a natural history of morality.
I'd buy that.
For Darwin, in order to become moral we first had to become social. “In order that primeval men, or the ape-like progenitors of man, should have become social,” Darwin reasoned, “they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings which impel other animals to live in a body.” As with all animal instincts, the “social instincts” of man were the result of variations bringing some benefit for survival.
No problems yet.
What we call “conscience” was also the result of natural selection. Darwin described it as a “feeling of dissatisfaction which invariably results . . . from any unsatisfied instinct.”
Not sure I totally agree with his description. I agree with the first part. You see, I used to be a Christian (yes, a true christian, Helen so don't even start). I thought my morality and conscience came from believing in God and Jesus. Now that I'm an atheist, I am pretty much the same person-silly, logical, and I care too much about the world sometimes. So for me, obviously my conscience/morality did not come from my religious beliefs, I just thought they did.
Such feelings of unease, Darwin explained, we now call “conscience.”
I think where they came from is not as important as how they work today. I don't need to believe in your definition of God to value human life. How do I know? I am now an atheist, but I still value human life. The whole month of September pretty much sucked for me (after the 11 that is). Yet certain people here would like to believe that I have no morals. Whatever.
If . . . men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters;
I wonder if Darwin would have held these same views if he had known about genetics and read up on the latest views about social altruism. My guess--these discoveries would have dramatically changed his views.
Yet Darwin balked at embracing the relativism he created, and insisted on ranking evolved moral traits. The unhappy result, however, was his espousal of views we would today call racist, and his justification of a program of eugenics.
And that was his mistake, not mine. See--I believe in his data, but not all of his conclusions.
Ranking evolved moral traits meant ranking the races accordingly. [...]Thus Darwin cheerfully asserted that the “western nations of Europe immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization.”
And he was wrong.
As a member of the favored race, Darwin embraced a typically nineteenth-century view of moral progress.
Which most people no longer hold today. Your point exactly? I fail to see what this has to do with evolution. If anything, this entire essay is a treatise on how humans, even when faced with evidence to the contrary, can hold on to incorrect beliefs and biases. Much of Darwins' data is now used by scientists to discredit racism and the whole idea that races even exist.
But the engine of evolution, even moral evolution, is natural selection.
But people have always differed on what they consider to be 'moral.' So even accepting ToE, people are still going to have differing opinions on what that all means.
With man we see similar facts.” Since different races, like different breeds of dogs or horses, develop different capacities
See above. We know now that much of intelligence and qualities is due to social upbringing. People were racist back then first. They used whatever they could to justify it, whether it was the Bible or the Descent of Man.
What is your point?
In the end, he was unsure whether to rank the races “as species or sub-species” but finally asserted that “the latter term appears the most appropriate.”
And I don't think you could find any legitamite scientists today who would agree with that, and that use evolutionary biology to back it up. However, I can point you to several different groups who promote racism who use the Bible as proof.
What may we gather from Darwin’s evolutionary account of morality? To begin with, Darwin rightly understood that bare sociality allowed for a startling variety of moralities.
I disagree-I think evolution can explain why we are the way we are. But it should not be used to justify it. This would be akin to you saying, "I'm a sinner because of Adam and Eve, therefore it's ok for me to sin!" I don't think so.
In contrast to the very determinate list of requisite virtues, definite commands, and established ends in the traditional natural law account
Yeah right. The baptists on this forum can't even all agree on this 'determinite' list (although I think that's a good thing). I think many Christians are under a false illusion of having objective morality.
evolution brings forth many different modes of group survival. Just as male lions, when taking over a pride, kill the young [...]
Yes this is true. Evolution does explain why humans can be awful creatures. This is a main reason why I want people to accept the theory and study it, so maybe we can understand our violent ways and possibly correct them. Every time I watch a discovery show about chimps and bonobos, I am shocked. I mean, yeah I believe in evolution but the similarities are alarming and eerie! I think 1 in 3 male chimps die from other chimps hands (fighting over territory). Then I switch to CNN and hear the latest wars in the middle east or N ireland. Yes I agree-we did evolve from chimps and it kind of sucks that we did.[/I]
so also many human societies have survived for hundreds of years by exposing their unwanted and deformed babies.
Yes, despite having religion and despite not beleiving in ToE. Hmmm. . .
Although many today would shudder at Darwin’s racism, we must concede that Darwin’s conclusions were correctly drawn from his evolutionary principles. If evolution is true, and the races themselves are the result of the struggle to survive
Evolution IS true, and there is no such thing as real human 'races' or sub-species. So the rest of the argument is completely invalid. Anthropologists have done much to help eradicte racism and racist ideas. Do you know how many Baptist churches felt about racism and segregation the 1950's? That's much more recent than Darwin.[/I]
As for the survival of the fittest, contemporary liberals have attempted to separate Darwin from Social Darwinism, but Darwin’s own words advocating severe struggle show us quite clearly that he was the first Social Darwinist.
So what! Like I said earlier, some of us don't put as much value and stock into the ramblings of old dead guys like you do! That's the beauty about the body of scientific knowledge-it can change and grow as we discover more about ourselves. Unfortunately, the Bible does not change and grow.
Interesting article though. I'll have to finish that Fukyama book sometime when I have time.
[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]