Maximizing Moral Virtue

[bennyboy]

The important difference is that the first picture represents a developing human body with no capacity for suffering and no conscious awareness.  The second is a young human being with a name who has bonded with other people, cries when it's scared (because it can process and form ideas about its environment), and is busy formulating a network of ideas about the things it interacts with.

Yes, I think your opinion is one that many people hold. 

In your view (as I understand it), there is some kind of ontological change (from non-human to human, from non-murderable to murderable) when the thing in question develops the ability to suffer and have conscious awareness. 

You don't really give a reason why this is so. Nor do you give a fair account of the reasons why many people who disagree with you (e.g. Aristotelians or Thomists) think that the ontological change occurs earlier. 

The second photo shows something adorable, and the first doesn't. But, as you say, it would not be a good argument to rely on people's instinctive responses to the differences in appearance.

We kill many things with little regard, based on form.  Why is it okay to murder a cow for food?  Well-- fuck it, it's not human and I want to eat it.

What's magical about a human in contrast to every other animal?  If you're Christian, it's a divine endowment.  If you're not, it's a state of development of the conscious mind that we consider superior to that of animals-- or it's just "looks like me, so it's under the umbrella of my protection."

EVEN IF a pre-birth human has the first glimmerings of sentience, so what?  Even if it suffers physical pain, so what?  It's still not a person in any way that really matters-- it hasn't hit that higher echelon of thought which is the only real distinguishing factor between humans and animals.

If you're pro-life, and not vegetarian, then I'd ask YOU for a rational explanation-- why is one killing okay, and the other not?  Is the reason not that, as a member of a social species, you have an emotional predisposition toward other members of the species, rather than a solid rational position?

[Belacqua]

It's still not a person in any way that really matters-- it hasn't hit that higher echelon of thought which is the only real distinguishing factor between humans and animals.

Again, I understand that this is your position. That to be a person "in any way that really matters" is to have a "higher echelon of thought." 

Some people who oppose abortion think that personhood begins before this "higher echelon" develops. 

I'd ask YOU for a rational explanation-- why is one killing okay, and the other not?  Is the reason not that, as a member of a social species, you have an emotional predisposition toward other members of the species, rather than a solid rational position?

Earlier I was saying that in order to have a fair debate with someone, we have to be able to state our opponent's position in language that he would agree with. 

It isn't fair to say that all anti-abortion people rely on 1) cuteness, or 2) emotional dispositions toward similarity. To assume that they do would be to ignore, for example, the arguments from potency and act. Since such arguments are ancient and are assumed by many people to be rational, anyone who claims to be able to state anti-abortion reasoning in fair terms would need to be aware of this.

[bennyboy]

It isn't fair to say that all anti-abortion people rely on 1) cuteness, or 2) emotional dispositions toward similarity. To assume that they do would be to ignore, for example, the arguments from potency and act. Since such arguments are ancient and are assumed by many people to be rational, anyone who claims to be able to state anti-abortion reasoning in fair terms would need to be aware of this.

I may need to look up "act and potency," so let me know if I'm getting it wrong. But whatever it is, I'd like to see how this argument is applied differentially to non-human developing mammals in utero, let alone to post-birth offspring.

If you're not vegetarian, then you must either believe or feel human exceptionalism, since you presumably would not tolerate the killing of humans for consumption, or the imposition of suffering in/by an industry with that purpose.

I propose the following reasons for the sense of human exceptionalism, and ask you to provide any that might be missing.
-egocentric bias (anything like me is more important than things unlike me)
-religious proclamations ("God created man in His image.")
-protective instinct ("Squeeee! It's cute, will die if necessary to defend it.")
-valuations of mental superiority: intellect and so on, along with the position that superior intellect makes something intrinsically more valuable.

I'd say egocentric bias in a non sequitur-- things are not intrinsically more value because they are like me.
Religious proclamation is irrelevant to a debate with someone outside your religion. Why should I care what you claim your God says?
Protective instinct is based on the previously-mentioned fallacy-- specifically, the use of "baby" terminology for something that isn't a baby.
Valuations of mental superiority cannot matter when a fetus has no mind at all-- certainly not more than any mammalian fetus.

What, exactly, is being lost in an abortion? There are many "human" things that do not need to preserved: corpses, clumps of hair, excrement. That they are "human" isn't itself enough to merit protection or concern.

[Belacqua]

It isn't fair to say that all anti-abortion people rely on 1) cuteness, or 2) emotional dispositions toward similarity. To assume that they do would be to ignore, for example, the arguments from potency and act. Since such arguments are ancient and are assumed by many people to be rational, anyone who claims to be able to state anti-abortion reasoning in fair terms would need to be aware of this.

I may need to look up "act and potency," so let me know if I'm getting it wrong.  But whatever it is, I'd like to see how this argument is applied differentially to non-human developing mammals in utero, let alone to post-birth offspring.

If you're not vegetarian, then you must either believe or feel human exceptionalism, since you presumably would not tolerate the killing of humans for consumption, or the imposition of suffering in/by an industry with that purpose.  

I propose the following reasons for the sense of human exceptionalism, and ask you to provide any that might be missing.
-egocentric bias (anything like me is more important than things unlike me)
-religious proclamations ("God created man in His image.")
-protective instinct ("Squeeee!  It's cute, will die if necessary to defend it.")
-valuations of mental superiority: intellect and so on, along with the position that superior intellect makes something intrinsically more valuable.

I'd say egocentric bias in a non sequitur-- things are not intrinsically more value because they are like me.
Religious proclamation is irrelevant to a debate with someone outside your religion.  Why should I care what you claim your God says?
Protective instinct is based on the previously-mentioned fallacy-- specifically, the use of "baby" terminology for something that isn't a baby.
Valuations of mental superiority cannot matter when a fetus has no mind at all-- certainly not more than any mammalian fetus.

What, exactly, is being lost in an abortion?  There are many "human" things that do not need to preserved: corpses, clumps of hair, excrement.  That they are "human" isn't itself enough to merit protection or concern.

The act/potency argument is simply that an organism develops (actualizes) its potentiality throughout its life. 

The ontological change occurs at conception, because that is when the actualization of human potential begins. Neither the sperm nor the egg has the potential to develop into a full human, but the fertilized egg does. From there it's just a long series of changes, including the gradual development of cognitive capacity. This argument doesn't recognize an ontological change based on location (inside the mother or outside). Nor does it see a clear milestone at some point when the thingy develops a particular capacity -- say, for suffering or for reciting the alphabet or for taking moral responsibility for one's own actions. An individual develops many capacities continually, and is always at some stage in which some potentials are not yet developed. (Until one dies, at which time activation of potential ends. So that's another ontological change.) 

Nor does the argument recognize the dependence of the thingy on the mother (i.e. viability). Since after all no human being survives entirely through its own efforts, and a newborn baby is scarcely less dependent on its supporting adults than a fetus. 

The argument is Aristotelian, and you know of course that he was not a Christian and didn't argue for supernatural insertion of a soul. It was taken into Christianity by Thomas Aquinas. Of course he believed in a soul and in people being special to God, but the argument as stated doesn't rely on this -- it's natural theology, not revealed. 

As to whether humans are more special than animals, that is a separate question. The activation of potential works the same in any animal which develops from the contribution of two parents. If we take it as a given that humans are worth protecting, then the act/potency argument is relevant to the point at which they become worth protecting. 

Personally I am open to the argument that all animals are more valuable than we usually think of them. The monks at the temple near my house won't even swat a mosquito. (And there are 6-inch poisonous centipedes in this area who seem to need killing, if anything does.) The fact that I am not devoted enough to the issue to give up my cheeseburgers speaks to my own lack of commitment, and doesn't really affect the becoming-human argument.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yup and all of that is a steaming load of crap 

1. Location is all that matters 

2.No significant change occurs at conception 

3. Dependence is the second most important thing 

4. The act/potency argument overall is garbage 

Abortion debate resolved 

[The Architect Of Fate]

And there is no sophisticated point on the "Pro-Life" side it can frankly be summed up as.

[bennyboy]

As to whether humans are more special than animals, that is a separate question. The activation of potential works the same in any animal which develops from the contribution of two parents. If we take it as a given that humans are worth protecting, then the act/potency argument is relevant to the point at which they become worth protecting. 

I don't consider it a separate question, because we define a human and an animal by different value standards. One is worth caring about, and the other is not-- for like 95% of people, at least. But I do not think there is a rational purpose for doing so-- emotionally, we care so little about other animals that it's hardly even worth the effort to formulate a rational argument.

Abortion is a case just like this-- for some, a fetus-before-week-x is not worth caring about, and for others, it is sacrosanct. In order to determine which position to adopt, it's important to (1) make an evaluation; (2) understand the basis for the evaluation. But again, I don't think there IS a rational argument about how to do (1), given that (2) rational arguments are not in fact the basis for the evaluation.

As for act/potency, that really seems like a cherry-picked moment. Should every female egg be harvested and impregnated in a lab? If not, are we committing the sin of failing to bring to fruition every potential human? What about corpses? They could be dug up and cloned. What about artificially-created fetuses? Could we not, now or after some research and development, bring into fruition, using technology, trillions or quadrillions of new human beings?

I say there are already plenty of people, maybe too many. The act/potential of even more people standing in my way on the sidewalks, pulling into the right-hand lane when they intend to go straight, or buying baby formula or feminine hygiene products-- no, I value these potential people negatively, and since they do not yet exist in any meaningful sense of the word, I'll be happy if their prospective mothers decide not to throw new humans in my path at every step.

The ontological change occurs at conception, because that is when the actualization of human potential begins. Neither the sperm nor the egg has the potential to develop into a full human, but the fertilized egg does.

I think that "ontological change" is an illusion. Both the sperm AND the egg have the potential to develop into a full human-- by meeting an egg or a sperm. It is in the nature of the carriers of eggs and sperm, in fact, to make this introduction. If you put a teenage boy and girl in a room long enough without supervision, you will, almost for sure, end up with a human being at some point, so much so that I'd say the existence of gendered individuals is ALREADY sufficient cause for the expectation of new human life.

[The Grand Nudger]

In a world where we maximize virtue, act potency and cuteness may all be moot. There's only one question for us to consider. How many women we'll be chaining to gurneys and forcing to give birth.

If we decide that we have to prevent abortions in order to maximize virtue - that number will be high, and doing so must be part of virtue no matter what arguments are used to put it forward any position on babbies.

It's the same with killing animals. If we decide that we have to stop killing animals to maximize moral virtue we will have condemned a significant number of animals (including human animals) to death.

OFC, I don't think that act and potency -or- cuteness are moral arguments, nor do I believe that it's impossible to be an ethical omnivore.... but we're running with it.

[bennyboy]

In a world where we maximize virtue, act potency and cuteness may all be moot.  There's only one question for us to consider.  How many women we'll be chaining to gurneys and forcing to give birth.

If we decide that we have to prevent abortions in order to maximize virtue - that number will be high, and doing so must be part of virtue no matter what arguments are used to put it forward any position on babbies.  

It's the same with killing animals.  If we decide that we have to stop killing animals to maximize moral virtue we will have condemned a significant number of animals (including human animals) to death.

OFC, I don't think that act and potency -or- cuteness are moral arguments, nor do I believe that it's impossible to be an ethical omnivore.... but we're running with it.

First, let me say good job circling all of this back to the OP.

Let me be clear about my position.  It isn't so much that abortion is right or wrong, or killing animals.  It's that where there's inconsistency in approach, but still an attempt to rationalize, then there's likely a cover-up for an emotional position-- and we either accept that morality is a mediated moral position, or do the work of cleaning up the rationale. It's going to be very hard to "maximize moral virtue" if you can't be very clear about what the moral impulse is and why it should guide behaviors.

For example, if someone says they're "pro-life," but is not vegetarian, then what they really mean is pro-human-life.  Then, in my opinion, they'd better have a really good rationale for why human life is sacrosanct, but not animal life.  The REAL answer, in my view, is that they're mostly Christians, and while they employ logicish-sounding langauge, the real motive is the expression of a pseudo-Biblical human exceptionalism-- "A baby is a precious gift from god, and killing such is abhorrent to all that is good in humanity." Or, if they're not Christians, they basically just don't give a f*ck-- "I'm gonna kill and eat Bambi because I can, because he tastes good, and that's a good enough reason for me."

Even worse, in America, is that many are pro-life right UP TO the moment where an actual human is born and begins living its life. They will deny state-funded daycare, welfare for single moms, extra funding for special education in the case of babies born with defects due to drug or alchohol use, and so on. But then, when some kid gets shot in the chest and is in a coma, they'll probably try to force the hospital not to pull the plug because. . . super-sciency reasons. That idea, that life is all about breath and a pulse, and not about actually living, seems very strange to me.

Or, if you take a stand against science in general-- for example, by demanding the inclusion of a Biblical view of reality in classrooms, but are very concerned about a "unique genetic makeup" at conception-- bruh where's the cherry-picking coming from?  If you're pro-science, you need to consider what science says about spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, about the development of the nervous system, and so on.  But they don't.

Some monks of various traiditons DO, as Belacqua mentioned, have an absolute pro-life position.  They wear masks to avoid inhaling and kiling bugs, they look down constantly to avoid accidentally killing anything, and so on.  I, on the other hand, will mercilessly murder any mosquito that enters my house.  I won't eat a hamburger, but I will most definitely slap a mosquito.  If I claim that animal death and suffering is intrinsically abhorrent, then Lucy, I have some 'splaining to do.

It turns out that many vegetarians are guilty of the "squeeee" reponse, and are no better than Christians in that regard. Kill a baby seal? Life in prison for you, if I can arrange it! Kill a spider that's just chillin' in the corner? Eeeeeek--- where's a man when you need one?

Maximizing moral virtue? What does it mean? So long as "moral virtue" is a collection of doubletalk to cover for the "Squeee" response, the moral topology is going to be strange and largely incoherent.

[The Grand Nudger]

First, let me say good job circling all of this back to the OP.

Let me be clear about my position.  It isn't so much that abortion is right or wrong, or killing animals.  It's that where there's inconsistency in approach, but still an attempt to rationalize, then there's likely a cover-up for an emotional position-- and we either accept that morality is a mediated moral position, or do the work of cleaning up the rationale.  It's going to be very hard to "maximize moral virtue" if you can't be very clear about what the moral impulse is and why it should guide behaviors.

For example, if someone says they're "pro-life," but is not vegetarian, then what they really mean is pro-human-life.  Then, in my opinion, they'd better have a really good rationale for why human life is sacrosanct, but not animal life.  The REAL answer, in my view, is that they're mostly Christians, and while they employ logicish-sounding langauge, the real motive is the expression of a pseudo-Biblical human exceptionalism-- "A baby is a precious gift from god, and killing such is abhorrent to all that is good in humanity."

Even worse, in America, is that many are pro-life right UP TO the moment where an actual human is born and begins living its life.  They will deny state-funded daycare, welfare for single moms, extra funding for special education in the case of babies born with defects due to drug or alchohol use, and so on.  But then, when some kid gets shot in the chest and is in a coma, they'll probably try to force the hospital not to pull the plug because. . .  super-sciency reasons.  That idea, that life is all about breath and a pulse, and not about actually living, seems very strange to me.

Or, if you take a stand against science in general-- for example, by demanding the inclusion of a Biblical view of reality in classrooms, but are very concerned about a "unique genetic makeup" at conception-- bruh where's the cherry-picking coming from?  If you're pro-science, you need to consider what science says about spontaneous abortions or miscarriages, about the development of the nervous system, and so on.  But they don't.

Some monks of various traiditons DO, as Belacqua mentioned, have an absolute pro-life position.  They wear masks to avoid inhaling and kiling bugs, they look down constantly to avoid accidentally killing anything, and so on.  I, on the other hand, will mercilessly murder any mosquito that enters my house.  I won't eat a hamburger, but I will most definitely slap a mosquito.  If I claim that animal death and suffering is intrinsically abhorrent, then Lucy, I have some 'splaining to do.

It turns out that many vegetarians are guilty of the "squeeee" reponse, and are no better than Christians in that regard.  Kill a baby seal?  Life in prison for you, if I can arrange it!  Kill a spider that's just chillin' in the corner?  Eeeeeek--- where's a man when you need one?

Maximizing moral virtue?  What does it mean?  So long as "moral virtue" is a collection of doubletalk to cover for the "Squeee" response, the moral topology is going to be strange and largely incoherent.

That would be a noncognitivist morality.  Ironically, we're all already maximizing our moral virtue if that's the case.  In that we're all being as squeee as we can be.  I suppose there's a little room to be "more of ourselves" - but..negligible, imo.

I think that animal death and suffering is intrinsically abhorrent - I'd probably just say that suffering is an item of inherent moral import.  Wherever you find suffering - there are moral questions to answer, moral puzzles to solve.  That's a big part of why I got into ag.  A 5% increase in fcr in a tilapia line accounts for right around 10k fewer fish per 5kft2 facility per year.  Over 30 years, that's alot of potential sufferers you don't have to chill, sedate, stun, and kill.  There's no particular reason that production egg rates can't be bred into a sex linked dual purpose free range heritage bird.  More resistant varieties of crops means less pesticide.  More productive means less fertilizer.  Then there's alternate use for bio-remedition byproducts. Niche operations like this reduce homelessness, unemployment, and foreclosure rates....while raising property values.  It all means less hunger. Maximizing this moral virtue -a presence for living- is marketable.  

Whole lotta killing between steps 1 and profit - monetarily or morally, ofc.  So, it doesn't seem like we have to refer to squee even if squee is a definite thing that some of us feel about some things. I doubt the notion would have ever crossed my mind if I didn't feel some sort of way about suffering. Allllll that said, we had a rule out at the csa. I don't give tours to vegans or nuts. Just doesn't work. For me, minimizing suffering is, itself, inherent to maximizing moral virtue. It means that there are all sorts of things I feel all sorts of ways about (and other people feel all sorts of ways about) that I think are a part of minimizing suffering. If that means pumping some fossil fuels, or leaning on a heavily processed input, or death - that's what I'm gonna do, despite the fact that I feel anti-squeee about those things.

In general, I think that alot of the time it's information asymmetry and exclusively suboptimal decision fields - rather than incoherence or inconsistency. You can fix one, but there isn't much to do about the other. You can explain to someone how a well managed closed loop amounts to less suffering - how it strictly controls it's suffering. In the end, though, you're only explaining these things because that suffering is an item of moral import that can't be separated from production and that does influence a consumer decisions. I would not have done things this way - made so much of life dependent on the death and suffering of other life - but that is the field of play.