RPG.net user points out irony of mods "not wanting to ban people", gets banned

[Bruwulf]

Interesting, and basically that is your argument restated. And a potential human might become another Einstein, and a bald eagle never will. So the idea of evaluating the value of a person before they ever get to be born is ghoulish in the extreme.

Which is why I'm not doing that.

Also, incidentally, if you want to take the argument in that direction, the penalty for killing Einstein and a retarded ward of the state is, correctly, exactly the same, so that's a cheap rhetorical trick that doesn't actually work.

[Dan Davenport]

Ah. So by that logic, a bald eagle is more valuable than a human, and the killing of a bald eagle should carry a harsher sentence than should the killing of a human.

Come on. I used to have a lot of respect for you back on TBP. You're just inventing things you want me to have said to argue with now.

Not at all. I'm just following your argument to its logical conclusion. If a potential bald eagle is more valuable than a potential human, then an actual bald eagle must be more valuable than an actual human. How is that not the case?

[jhkim]

A little more on ethics and life here.

Instead, what we're doing is essentially saying that the life doesn't matter until we've decide whether it's a human life or not. The callous hubris of that position is astounding, and sounds  far too similar to the same sort of justifications that tyrants and social engineers have used to justify the killing of those they find inconvenient.

Our application of laws and principles should be consistent. While I might disagree with jhkim on the demarcation point, his position is consistent and he has considered the logical and ethical consequences of that position. I am looking for the same consistency, and as such I see all human life as entitled to life, liberty ... and I am not about to decide the wholesale slaughter of that life is okay until we make up our minds whether it counts or not.

First of all, thanks for recognition - even if we disagree. I'm not entirely sure I understand your position, though. Especially, do you have a general position on non-human life?

My ethics about individuals are based on whether someone is a thinking, conscious being. So if something is eliminated that has no brain function - like a sperm cell, an egg, or placenta - those should not be considered murder. I have no ethical problem with spermicidal jelly, for example. I also have no problem with IVF fertilization, where several eggs are fertilized and a number of them are disposed of.

I don't feel that most non-human animals should be considered, but I have some doubt about a handful with complex brain function like chimpanzees and dolphins - that they might be considered thinking, conscious beings. I don't think they should be considered in the same category as humans, but I might lean towards ethically treating them differently than we would cows or fish. I could consider requiring a trial or legal order before killing a chimpanzee, and giving them limited rights. In general, though, it seems to me that worrying about the lives of non-humans is considered to be bleeding-heart liberal thinking.

The thing is that as far as I know, no mainstream Christian organization has historically treated life as starting at conception. The traditional norm has been that life starts at birth. If a woman miscarries (as has happened throughout history), the remains were traditionally *not* given last rites and a burial on consecrated ground.

It's only in very recent times that there has been a movement to have funerals for a fertilized egg or embryo. And as far as I read, it's still not the standard.

To me, what makes someone a living human soul is not their DNA, but their existence as a thinking, conscious human being. For example, if a person is fully brain-dead, then I do not consider it murder to terminate them. I can respect those who feel otherwise, but I don't think that should be a legal mandate. That is, if someone terminates a proven brain-dead loved one, I don't think they should go to jail for premeditated murder.

Let us assume that an unborn individual does not count as a member of its species.

If that's the case, then there can be no objection to destorying bald eagle eggs. They aren't bald eagles.

I'd have the same objection to destroying bald eagle eggs that I would to neutering fertile bald eagles. It has the effect of reducing the number and genetic diversity of the bald eagle population. Bald eagle sperm definitely does not count as a member of the species, but destroying it can harm the bald eagle population. I don't have any ethical issues with killing a bird, but I'd want the endangered species population and genetic diversity increased.

That said, as I said, I don't have a problem with people using birth control - including spermicidal jelly which destroys unique human DNA.

Outside of endangered species, though, I don't have an ethical problem with destroying bird eggs. I have respect for vegans and Jains, but I still eat meat and eggs, for example.

[shuddemell]

Of course that is what you are doing. You've agreed that it is alive at conception, it has to be human, the DNA is human, it's parents are human and still you are trying to find a way to say it isn't human until "we" as a society say so. Why would it not be human, but the bald eagle definitely be a bald eagle? By the way, the penalty for killing a bald eagle or destroying its eggs are the same, and you claim they have value because they are a potential bald eagle, and yet the potential human may or may not have value because you haven't decided yet. Obviously you've applied some sort of valuation of the lives involved, yet claim you are not "evaluating the value of a person"...

[shuddemell]

A little more on ethics and life here.

Instead, what we're doing is essentially saying that the life doesn't matter until we've decide whether it's a human life or not. The callous hubris of that position is astounding, and sounds  far too similar to the same sort of justifications that tyrants and social engineers have used to justify the killing of those they find inconvenient.

Our application of laws and principles should be consistent. While I might disagree with jhkim on the demarcation point, his position is consistent and he has considered the logical and ethical consequences of that position. I am looking for the same consistency, and as such I see all human life as entitled to life, liberty ... and I am not about to decide the wholesale slaughter of that life is okay until we make up our minds whether it counts or not.

First of all, thanks for recognition - even if we disagree. I'm not entirely sure I understand your position, though. Especially, do you have a general position on non-human life?

My ethics about individuals are based on whether someone is a thinking, conscious being. So if something is eliminated that has no brain function - like a sperm cell, an egg, or placenta - those should not be considered murder. I have no ethical problem with spermicidal jelly, for example. I also have no problem with IVF fertilization, where several eggs are fertilized and a number of them are disposed of.

I don't feel that most non-human animals should be considered, but I have some doubt about a handful with complex brain function like chimpanzees and dolphins - that they might be considered thinking, conscious beings. I don't think they should be considered in the same category as humans, but I might lean towards ethically treating them differently than we would cows or fish. I could consider requiring a trial or legal order before killing a chimpanzee, and giving them limited rights. In general, though, it seems to me that worrying about the lives of non-humans is considered to be bleeding-heart liberal thinking.

The thing is that as far as I know, no mainstream Christian organization has historically treated life as starting at conception. The traditional norm has been that life starts at birth. If a woman miscarries (as has happened throughout history), the remains were traditionally *not* given last rites and a burial on consecrated ground.

It's only in very recent times that there has been a movement to have funerals for a fertilized egg or embryo. And as far as I read, it's still not the standard.

To me, what makes someone a living human soul is not their DNA, but their existence as a thinking, conscious human being. For example, if a person is fully brain-dead, then I do not consider it murder to terminate them. I can respect those who feel otherwise, but I don't think that should be a legal mandate. That is, if someone terminates a proven brain-dead loved one, I don't think they should go to jail for premeditated murder.

Let us assume that an unborn individual does not count as a member of its species.

If that's the case, then there can be no objection to destorying bald eagle eggs. They aren't bald eagles.

I'd have the same objection to destroying bald eagle eggs that I would to neutering fertile bald eagles. It has the effect of reducing the number and genetic diversity of the bald eagle population. Bald eagle sperm definitely does not count as a member of the species, but destroying it can harm the bald eagle population. I don't have any ethical issues with killing a bird, but I'd want the endangered species population and genetic diversity increased.

That said, as I said, I don't have a problem with people using birth control - including spermicidal jelly which destroys unique human DNA.

Outside of endangered species, though, I don't have an ethical problem with destroying bird eggs. I have respect for vegans and Jains, but I still eat meat and eggs, for example.

My position is that since I cannot determine exactly at what point "sentient" life begins in human beings that I will not attempt to judge its value and must assume that it is already alive (which it is, biologically speaking anyway) and that I have no business deciding whether or not it is allowed to live. I fundamentally agree with your position, but I don't feel myself qualified to know at what point a human actually becomes sentient that I will be on the safe side and not make that determination except in the direst of circumstances (which an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy is not). Your examples of dolphins and chimpanzees kind of goes to my point... can I determine if they are sentient or not? Nope, so there too, I avoid killing them whether they are in utero or not.

[Bruwulf]

Not at all. I'm just following your argument to its logical conclusion. If a potential bald eagle is more valuable than a potential human, then an actual bald eagle must be more valuable than an actual human. How is that not the case?

You're omitting the conditional I put on there: for the purposes of trying to conserve an endangered species. If I wipe out a bunch of starling nests, or a bunch of starlings, nothing will be done to me, because we aren't specifically trying to preserve an endangered species in that case.

The only reason bald eagles are specifically protected is because they are in danger of being wiped out. Now you can make whatever argument you want to about the sanctity of human life, and that's fine. But you can't say we're on the verge of going extinct and need to be conserved as a species, so a law specifically aimed at preventing that does not and should not exist.

Get it yet? I'm saying your example was dumb because the two things are significantly different situations and have significantly different rational behind them.

[Bruwulf]

Of course that is what you are doing. You've agreed that it is alive at conception, it has to be human, the DNA is human, it's parents are human and still you are trying to find a way to say it isn't human until "we" as a society say so. Why would it not be human, but the bald eagle definitely be a bald eagle? By the way, the penalty for killing a bald eagle or destroying its eggs are the same, and you claim they have value because they are a potential bald eagle, and yet the potential human may or may not have value because you haven't decided yet. Obviously you've applied some sort of valuation of the lives involved, yet claim you are not "evaluating the value of a person"...

You are bound and determined to try to twist my words into a position I didn't take but is easier to argue with, aren't you? You should go apply to be a mod on TBP. You're doing them proud right now.

I made a single, very constrained argument. I'm not going to restate it for the nth time, but you can go back and read the several places I've clarified and restated it. Virtually nothing in that post has any actual connection to my argument.

[Dan Davenport]

Not at all. I'm just following your argument to its logical conclusion. If a potential bald eagle is more valuable than a potential human, then an actual bald eagle must be more valuable than an actual human. How is that not the case?

You're omitting the conditional I put on there: for the purposes of trying to conserve an endangered species. If I wipe out a bunch of starling nests, or a bunch of starlings, nothing will be done to me, because we aren't specifically trying to preserve an endangered species in that case.

The only reason bald eagles are specifically protected is because they are in danger of being wiped out. Now you can make whatever argument you want to about the sanctity of human life, and that's fine. But you can't say we're on the verge of going extinct and need to be conserved as a species, so a law specifically aimed at preventing that does not and should not exist.

Get it yet? I'm saying your example was dumb because the two things are significantly different situations and have significantly different rational behind them.

I get that there is a special circumstance regarding bald eagles that does not apply to humans -- specifically, their rarity. My point is that if that rarity conveys special value on an unborn bald eagle that does not apply to an unborn human, then the same relative values must apply to the born members of both species. Again, how does this not follow?

[jhkim]

My position is that since I cannot determine exactly at what point "valid" life begins in human beings that I will not attempt to judge its value and must assume that it is already alive (which it is, biologically speaking anyway) and that I have no business deciding whether or not it is allowed to live. I fundamentally agree with your position, but I don't feel myself qualified to know at what point a human actually becomes sentient that I will be on the safe side and not make that determination except in the direst of circumstances (which an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy is not).

So, how do you feel about:

1) Chimpanzees and dolphins? Do you feel qualified to judge whether they are sentient?

2) Sperm and unfertilized eggs. These are unquestionably alive and represent potential human life. Do you feel qualified to judge them?

I get that there is a special circumstance regarding bald eagles that does not apply to humans -- specifically, their rarity. My point is that if that rarity conveys special value on an unborn bald eagle that does not apply to an unborn human, then the same relative values must apply to the born members of both species. Again, how does this not follow?

They're completely different ethics. In the case of bald eagles, there is an end goal of keeping genetic diversity. That doesn't entail respect for individuals - it's a question of keeping up the population.

If we set aside the case of eggs - just consider bald eagle sperm versus human sperm. If a zookeeper takes great care with bald eagle sperm, and tries to keep up the population that way -- but is careless with their own human sperm. Does that mean that they think bald eagles are more valuable than humans?

[Bruwulf]

I get that there is a special circumstance regarding bald eagles that does not apply to humans -- specifically, their rarity. My point is that if that rarity conveys special value on an unborn bald eagle that does not apply to an unborn human, then the same relative values must apply to the born members of both species. Again, how does this not follow?

Because the potential is important in the one case, but not in the other. We aren't making a moralistic judgement. Essentially, hurting a bald eagle, or destroying their eggs, is a property crime, where the owner of the property is "the world", or "the country" I suppose. We're not saying "you did evil", we're saying "you did something we said not to do".

Hence why, as I said, we don't attach special legal imperative to other species of birds. Only rare ones.

ETA, also, what jhkim said is solid, as well, and probably clearer than my own argument.

[shuddemell]

Of course that is what you are doing. You've agreed that it is alive at conception, it has to be human, the DNA is human, it's parents are human and still you are trying to find a way to say it isn't human until "we" as a society say so. Why would it not be human, but the bald eagle definitely be a bald eagle? By the way, the penalty for killing a bald eagle or destroying its eggs are the same, and you claim they have value because they are a potential bald eagle, and yet the potential human may or may not have value because you haven't decided yet. Obviously you've applied some sort of valuation of the lives involved, yet claim you are not "evaluating the value of a person"...

You are bound and determined to try to twist my words into a position I didn't take but is easier to argue with, aren't you? You should go apply to be a mod on TBP. You're doing them proud right now.

I made a single, very constrained argument. I'm not going to restate it for the nth time, but you can go back and read the several places I've clarified and restated it. Virtually nothing in that post has any actual connection to my argument.

Really? I understand that you tried to constrain your argument to apply a value to bald eagles only when we are trying to conserve the species. I still don't see how that has anything to do with the value of human life, and there are plenty of people interested in conserving human life. Even if we apply the apples to oranges comparison you made (Conservation vs. Non-Conserved Humans), you're placing a value on them, something rare but something plentiful is the valuation you are making (a highly collectivist point of view), but it is an evaluation of their worth. Everything I stated is either directly something you stated or a logical conclusion from your statements.

[shuddemell]

My position is that since I cannot determine exactly at what point "valid" life begins in human beings that I will not attempt to judge its value and must assume that it is already alive (which it is, biologically speaking anyway) and that I have no business deciding whether or not it is allowed to live. I fundamentally agree with your position, but I don't feel myself qualified to know at what point a human actually becomes sentient that I will be on the safe side and not make that determination except in the direst of circumstances (which an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy is not).

So, how do you feel about:

1) Chimpanzees and dolphins? Do you feel qualified to judge whether they are sentient?

2) Sperm and unfertilized eggs. These are unquestionably alive and represent potential human life. Do you feel qualified to judge them?

As to chimpanzees and dolphins, NO I don't feel myself qualified to make that judgment. As for embryos, no, but sperm yes, because by itself it has no potential for sentience. It must have an egg and fertilization to occur.

I get that there is a special circumstance regarding bald eagles that does not apply to humans -- specifically, their rarity. My point is that if that rarity conveys special value on an unborn bald eagle that does not apply to an unborn human, then the same relative values must apply to the born members of both species. Again, how does this not follow?

They're completely different ethics. In the case of bald eagles, there is an end goal of keeping genetic diversity. That doesn't entail respect for individuals - it's a question of keeping up the population.

If we set aside the case of eggs - just consider bald eagle sperm versus human sperm. If a zookeeper takes great care with bald eagle sperm, and tries to keep up the population that way -- but is careless with their own human sperm. Does that mean that they think bald eagles are more valuable than humans?

As to chimpanzees and dolphins, NO I don't feel myself qualified to make that judgment. As for embryos, no, but sperm and unfertilized eggs, yes, because by themselves, they have no potential for sentience. It must have an egg and fertilization to occur for sentience to occur.

[Bruwulf]

Really? I understand that you tried to constrain your argument to apply a value to bald eagles only when we are trying to conserve the species. I still don't see how that has anything to do with the value of human life, and there are plenty of people interested in conserving human life. Even if we apply the apples to oranges comparison you made (Conservation vs. Non-Conserved Humans), you're placing a value on them, something rare but something plentiful is the valuation you are making (a highly collectivist point of view), but it is an evaluation of their worth. Everything I stated is either directly something you stated or a logical conclusion from your statements.

Really? Point me to these "plenty" of people who think the human species needs "conservation" in terms of population growth, please.

They do exist, I'll give you that.

Always in the opposite direction, though.

If we haven't already, we're about to cross the 8 billion threshold. We are not an endangered species that needs our population conserved. Maybe, arguably, certain specific bloodlines, you might be able to make that argument. Maybe we should be breeding gingers in captivity. But humans as a whole? No.

[shuddemell]

Really? I understand that you tried to constrain your argument to apply a value to bald eagles only when we are trying to conserve the species. I still don't see how that has anything to do with the value of human life, and there are plenty of people interested in conserving human life. Even if we apply the apples to oranges comparison you made (Conservation vs. Non-Conserved Humans), you're placing a value on them, something rare but something plentiful is the valuation you are making (a highly collectivist point of view), but it is an evaluation of their worth. Everything I stated is either directly something you stated or a logical conclusion from your statements.

Really? Point me to these "plenty" of people who think the human species needs "conservation" in terms of population growth, please.

They do exist, I'll give you that.

Always in the opposite direction, though.

If we haven't already, we're about to cross the 8 billion threshold. We are not an endangered species that needs our population conserved. Maybe, arguably, certain specific bloodlines, you might be able to make that argument. Maybe we should be breeding gingers in captivity. But humans as a whole? No.

Have you ever heard of fundamentalist Christians? I'm not saying I agree with them, but there are those that are concerned. My point is that there are those concerned more with humans than eagles. I personally think we can do them both justice without sacrificing them on the altar of our disregard. I am also not saying that Bald Eagles don't need conservation, they do. But it is an interesting shift to compare an ethical conundrum (human life and abortion) with essentially a legal one (at least that is the impression that I got from your post, though I would submit it too is an ethical consideration).

[Bruwulf]

Have you ever heard of fundamentalist Christians? I'm not saying I agree with them, but there are those that are concerned. My point is that there are those concerned more with humans than eagles. I personally think we can do them both justice without sacrificing them on the altar of our disregard.

"Be fruitful and multiply" isn't an imperative for conservation, it's an imperative for overpopulation. Conservation works in both directions, not just one.

I never set out to make either a pro- or anti- abortion argument, only pointing out a bad example. Which I stand by. As far as my actual position on abortion goes, I'm very much on the "It's a really complicated, messy question" side of things. I tend to be more anti- than pro-, but not to the extent that would make true anti-abortionists happy. Basically I piss both sides off.

But it is an interesting shift to compare an ethical conundrum (human life and abortion) with essentially a legal one (at least that is the impression that I got from your post, though I would submit it too is an ethical consideration).

But that was my point to Dan. He was trying to conflate a legal argument with a moral one. Killing a bald eagle is not immoral, it's just illegal... Well, also stupid and selfish and such, too, probably, but it's not Evil, and to the extent it's wrong at all, it's because you're potentially robbing future generations of getting to see living bald eagles.