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

[shuddemell]

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.

I agree, it's very complicated. That's why I default to the position I do. I can't make the determination, and so far, other than what we know about conception, no one else can either. I find it more ethically palatable to err on the side of not taking potential humans out of the running rather than allowing their extermination only to find out that they were indeed human.

[jhkim]

Regarding the ethical line:  For me, the ethical line is whether someone is a thinking, sentient being *at the time*. If someone is brain-dead, it doesn't matter if that body held sentience in the past. If something could be turned into a sentient being some time in the future, it similarly isn't the same.

For example, if we were to develop true artificial intelligence - then even if a set of hardware *would* hold an AI in the future, it isn't murder if I turn it off before any intelligence develops.

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 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.

A fertilized egg also has no potential for sentience on its own. It needs to be implanted into a suitable spot for growing, and then the resulting growth needs to be fed and tended under proper conditions. For example, my friends Ben and Madeline recently had a fertilized egg implanted into a woman acting as surrogate host. They had a bunch of fertilized eggs created, and then worked on trying to implant them.

To my mind, if one of those egg fails to implant, that doesn't mean that a person has died, and we should hold a funeral. Likewise, it isn't murder if the remaining eggs are destroyed after one successfully implants.

The condition of "on it's own" seems like an arbitrary line to me. Development never happens on its own. A sperm and egg as a pair constitute potential on their own. It is destroying potential humanity to kill off the sperm or the egg and prevent fertilization.

A fertilized egg - just like an unfertilized egg - is still just part of the potential for a future sentient being, not a sentient being itself.

[shuddemell]

You could view any of these points as arbitrary. On it's own, meaning in the right environment, is chosen by me because at that point it's DNA is complete, and will be the same throughout its life. No less arbitrary than sentience, since you may struggle to prove exactly what "sentience" really is.

[Bruwulf]

You could view any of these points as arbitrary. On it's own, meaning in the right environment, is chosen by me because at that point it's DNA is complete, and will be the same throughout its life. No less arbitrary than sentience, since you may struggle to prove exactly what "sentience" really is.

When confronted with a difficult question, there are two fundamental approaches to it.

One is to try to address it, accepting you might end up being wrong. The other is to refuse to even try to answer it.

[shuddemell]

I told him exactly why I chose that spot, and I personally don't feel that standard is any less arbitrary than his standard of sentience, and my answer goes exactly to the point of why I exclude the unfertilized from the fertilized. I didn't refuse to answer anything. You are suggesting I am being dishonest, which I am not, so if you require any clarification, ask. Otherwise, you can politely gfy. I can accept being wrong, it won't be the first time, but I will not be flippantly accused of dishonesty.

[jhkim]

I told him exactly why I chose that spot, and I personally don't feel that standard is any less arbitrary than his standard of sentience, and my answer goes exactly to the point of why I exclude the unfertilized from the fertilized. I didn't refuse to answer anything. You are suggesting I am being dishonest, which I am not, so if you require any clarification, ask. Otherwise, you can politely gfy. I can accept being wrong, it won't be the first time, but I will not be flippantly accused of dishonesty.

I agree. I don't think you're being dishonest, shuddemell. But I do have disagreements.

For one, there's a difference between an incomplete definition and arbitrariness, though. Just because we don't have a rigorous definition that defines exactly what is or isn't sentient -- that doesn't mean that it is arbitrary, and we could just as easily substitute "blue eyes" for "sentient" and it would be the same. There is a thing called sentience, even if we're still studying and refining exactly what has it.

Also, it seems to me that you also care about sentience, which is why you consider dolphins and chimpanzees worth protection, and presumably also humans. So your criterion includes the definition of sentience (the same as me), and further adds to it a distinction that you'll also consider as sentient something that may become sentient in the future -- but only past a certain point of potential that you judge.

I don't fully understand your reasoning, yet, shuddemell -- but I'll describe what I encounter in some other arguments. Many of them break down to biological mandate. Sex and fertilization are biologically *supposed* to be for procreation, and morally, we should follow the Law of Nature to keep to that purpose. But if there is a *non-natural* fertilization such as in in-vitro fertilization (IVF), then we have no moral obligation to implant the fertilized eggs created that way. However, I don't believe that the Laws of Nature are moral laws, any more than I think the Law of the Jungle should be how we live as a society.

So to this end: How do you regard our moral obligation towards fertilized eggs created using IVF, that are only later implanted into fertile women?

[shuddemell]

Yes, I do care about sentience, and as such, without a specific definition of when that actually begins, I default to conception, because as I said before, it is the point at which the dna is complete to fully develop into a human (or chimpanzee or dolphin). You could say I am trying to err on the side of caution since we cannot as yet determine when exactly that begins. Also, in the case of brain death, I have a bit more trouble feeling okay with destroying them unless we are absolutely sure that they are truly and irrevocably brain dead, and as with many medical issues is very often not clear cut.

It's primarily because the new DNA acquired from fertilization is about a clear demarcation point as we presently have... obviously not perfect but I do find it a little more clear than the incomplete definition of "sentience".
If you or someone could actually define the point at which "sentience" begins, I would happily adopt essentially the same position as you have. Until that point, I don't feel comfortable using an incomplete definition as a criteria for life or death.

IVF is a sticky wicket. If the embryos are kept frozen and not destroyed, I have no real problem with that. The other is a point where I have trouble reconciling the idea of life begins at conception with human intervention for said conception. I really don't have a conclusive answer regarding that for myself.

[Bruwulf]

I told him exactly why I chose that spot, and I personally don't feel that standard is any less arbitrary than his standard of sentience, and my answer goes exactly to the point of why I exclude the unfertilized from the fertilized. I didn't refuse to answer anything. You are suggesting I am being dishonest, which I am not, so if you require any clarification, ask. Otherwise, you can politely gfy. I can accept being wrong, it won't be the first time, but I will not be flippantly accused of dishonesty.

I'll apologize in part. I was being flippant. But I was not accusing you of being dishonest. I was making a snarky, flippant commentary on what I read to be your stance and why you took it - that, as I read it, since you can't be sure of the correct answer, you're rejecting the possibility of nuance to be on the safe side.

[jhkim]

Yes, I do care about sentience, and as such, without a specific definition of when that actually begins, I default to conception, because as I said before, it is the point at which the dna is complete to fully develop into a human (or chimpanzee or dolphin). You could say I am trying to err on the side of caution since we cannot as yet determine when exactly that begins. Also, in the case of brain death, I have a bit more trouble feeling okay with destroying them unless we are absolutely sure that they are truly and irrevocably brain dead, and as with many medical issues is very often not clear cut.

You think that a fertilized egg cell by itself might be a sentient creature? I find that hard to fathom. Do you think that the cell has some sort of sentience as a property of its DNA, but it just can't communicate? If a fertilized egg might have sentience, how could you know for sure if any other cell or creature has sentience?

As I see it, sentience is a property of a complex brain. If a being has no brain - like a single cell or a plant - then it is definitely not sentient. But even among beings with brains, I have no doubts about most of them. I'm willing to give doubt to a handful of non-human animals like chimpanzees and dolphins, but I am sure enough about chickens and fish that I don't have a problem eating them. (Among other things, dolphins themselves eat meat.)

I am willing to respect vegans who don't want to take any animal life. They have their own views that taking animal life is wrong. But I feel that veganism should definitely be a personal choice, not something imposed by the government. I feel the same way about those who want to treat fertilized eggs as sentient. I'm willing to respect that as someone else's choice, but I don't think it should be imposed by the government.

[shuddemell]

Not rejecting nuance, just not willing to take a chance of becoming a mass murderer through ignorance. I am certainly willing to discuss all the details you want, but until I fell I have a clearly defined demarcation that I am not willing to risk lives on a lack of certainty.

[shuddemell]

Yes, I do care about sentience, and as such, without a specific definition of when that actually begins, I default to conception, because as I said before, it is the point at which the dna is complete to fully develop into a human (or chimpanzee or dolphin). You could say I am trying to err on the side of caution since we cannot as yet determine when exactly that begins. Also, in the case of brain death, I have a bit more trouble feeling okay with destroying them unless we are absolutely sure that they are truly and irrevocably brain dead, and as with many medical issues is very often not clear cut.

You think that a fertilized egg cell by itself might be a sentient creature? I find that hard to fathom. Do you think that the cell has some sort of sentience as a property of its DNA, but it just can't communicate? If a fertilized egg might have sentience, how could you know for sure if any other cell or creature has sentience?

As I see it, sentience is a property of a complex brain. If a being has no brain - like a single cell or a plant - then it is definitely not sentient. But even among beings with brains, I have no doubts about most of them. I'm willing to give doubt to a handful of non-human animals like chimpanzees and dolphins, but I am sure enough about chickens and fish that I don't have a problem eating them. (Among other things, dolphins themselves eat meat.)

I am willing to respect vegans who don't want to take any animal life. They have their own views that taking animal life is wrong. But I feel that veganism should definitely be a personal choice, not something imposed by the government. I feel the same way about those who want to treat fertilized eggs as sentient. I'm willing to respect that as someone else's choice, but I don't think it should be imposed by the government.

No, I doubt that is possible, but I really don't like making value judgements where human life is concerned on what is essentially (though probably correct) assumptions. As far as governments mandating anything, I made no statement about that at all. Personally, at present, I leave that to the conscience of the individual. I was explaining the reasoning for my personal belief and my actions that follow from it.

[Pat]

You think that a fertilized egg cell by itself might be a sentient creature? I find that hard to fathom. Do you think that the cell has some sort of sentience as a property of its DNA, but it just can't communicate? If a fertilized egg might have sentience, how could you know for sure if any other cell or creature has sentience?

I don't agree, but shuddemell is taking a rational position. We don't know for sure when life starts, and we don't how to clearly define where sentience begins, or sapience, and we can't draw a clear line between what's human and what's not human. And when we have to make decisions where we can't clearly divine the answer, we shouldn't just draw the line at the most probable answer and call it quits, because we haven't considered the consequences. And the more severe the consequences of a bad guess, the more we should err on the side of caution. It's not that different from safety tolerances on bridge, or what level of background exposure to a chemical is considered carcinogenic -- it's more important to be safe than completely efficient. And in this case, it's a matter of life or death, so it's hard to argue against a conservative assessment. Shuddemell just has an exceptionally low risk tolerance on this issue.

[Bruwulf]

I don't agree, but shuddemell is taking a rational position. We don't know for sure when life starts, and we don't how to clearly define where sentience begins, or sapience, and we can't draw a clear line between what's human and what's not human.

Yes and no. True, we don't have clear, bright-line answers to some of those questions. That's a fact. But we do have some pretty good understandings of negative answers to some of those questions. For example, we can conclusively say a fertilized embryo is neither sapient nor sentient. It has no brain. It won't have even the beginnings of one for a few weeks, and even then, it's many more weeks before it's something that could even plausibly be called a developed brain.

[jhkim]

You think that a fertilized egg cell by itself might be a sentient creature? I find that hard to fathom. Do you think that the cell has some sort of sentience as a property of its DNA, but it just can't communicate? If a fertilized egg might have sentience, how could you know for sure if any other cell or creature has sentience?

I don't agree, but shuddemell is taking a rational position. We don't know for sure when life starts, and we don't how to clearly define where sentience begins, or sapience, and we can't draw a clear line between what's human and what's not human. And when we have to make decisions where we can't clearly divine the answer, we shouldn't just draw the line at the most probable answer and call it quits, because we haven't considered the consequences. And the more severe the consequences of a bad guess, the more we should err on the side of caution. It's not that different from safety tolerances on bridge, or what level of background exposure to a chemical is considered carcinogenic -- it's more important to be safe than completely efficient. And in this case, it's a matter of life or death, so it's hard to argue against a conservative assessment. Shuddemell just has an exceptionally low risk tolerance on this issue.

This is a version of Pascal's Wager - which I think is a flawed logical argument. Pascal said that it's better to believe in God, because (roughly) the consequences of not believing in God are so huge, it's best not to take the chance. Even though I am a Christian, I don't think that it's logically correct to claim this as rational logic. Pascal's wager holds just as true for Buddhist, Shinto, and any other religious belief. However, we can't act like we believe in all religions simultaneously.

I have no problem with believing in Christianity as a matter of faith. I do. But I think it should be admitted as a matter of faith, not a rational choice that logically follows from the limits of science.


I feel that there is a similar issue here. Maybe a single fertilized egg cell has an invisible sentience or soul to it. Can I prove it doesn't? No, I can't. But there are a million other possibilities of things that *might* be true. Are cows and pigs sentient? I can't prove that either. Many people avoid eating their meat for moral reasons. Others go further, and they are fully vegan, and avoid harming bugs and other living things. Ultimately, one has to choose among the millions of unprovable things to act on.

[Pat]

Yes and no. True, we don't have clear, bright-line answers to some of those questions. That's a fact. But we do have some pretty good understandings of negative answers to some of those questions. For example, we can conclusively say a fertilized embryo is neither sapient nor sentient. It has no brain. It won't have even the beginnings of one for a few weeks, and even then, it's many more weeks before it's something that could even plausibly be called a developed brain.

No, we can't say that. While it's true a fertilized embryo is not sapient, I was the one who added the term to the discussion, and I did it deliberately. The rest of you have been using "sentient" instead, and the two words are not synonyms. Sentient just means able to react to sensations. Which, depending on how define it, can certainly apply to an embryo, because it's a cell and cells reacts to chemical stimuli. That's a long way from a nervous system and a complex emotional response, but that's the point. There is no clear dividing line.

But conception? That's a fairly clear dividing line. It's true, it probably doesn't make much difference if you choose the moment of conception, or 3 days later; a cell vs. a clump of cells. But 3 days is purely arbitrary, it's not a good schelling point. And while there are some other natural breakpoints, they occur much later in development, like a heartbeat, or a detectable brainwave, or the emergence of a human shape. So if you want to draw a line before all that, then conception is the natural default.