On the ethics of consciousness

[alfadorredux]

<pedantic> That's largely cultural, actually. The French eat horses, or used to as of ~100 years ago. They still eat dogs in Korea. Hell, the last human cannibal society, the Fore of New Guinea, only gave it up about half a century ago, and that, as I understand it, more due to problems with disease propagation than any innate sense of disgust at the practice. </pedantic>

[Radical_Dreamer]

Remember what RD stated, that the human brain does not develop until few weeks after conception, wherein the babe creates a "self" identity. Before conception, all the information passed from mother to babe from every senses and nourishment are actually the result of the babe being "part of the human body", of one identity, and that is of the mother. In which case, abortion at that point is like cutting your own arm rather than killing someone.

However, in regards to ethics, I do point this question to RD (I'm not really against abortion, but this question is just for amusement's sake). Considering the development of ego reaches its first stage 7 weeks after the conception of the child, and if that makes it perfectly fine for abortion, does that mean it's perfectly fine to kill a child after conception but before the first stage? I mean, no brain no pain; simple as that, right? Of course, I can anticipate what your response may be, but I'm far too curious to hear it from you.

I've addressed this in this thread; in fact, in the very post you refer to.

No brain, no pain. It's a simple as that. Thus, there cannot possibly be an ethical case for opposing abortion prior to seven weeks after conception.

I will take issue with some of what you're saying though. It's premature to say that the ego starts developing at that point. We can say that it potentially becomes possible for the ego to begin forming at about seven weeks after conception. As of yet, we are not clear on what exactly about the brain is responsible for the phenomena that is consciousness. Additionally, the ego is a philosophical abstract; it doesn't necessarily have a discrete physical cause. Which is not to say it doesn't. Just that we can't, at least to my knowledge, say that it does.

I will also take issue with your use of the term "child" in this context. Child refers to a post-birth state. While for convenience or poetry (or for that matter, manipulation) a woman may be referred to as being pregnant with a child, it's not strictly correct. For most of the pregnancy, she's pregnant with a fetus, which is not a child, and does not become one until after delivery. Despite what misogyny activists will say, an abortion is not, and cannot be, killing a child.

However, the topic of cognition in relationship to ethics might be an interesting discussion in itself, though if that so interests you or others, it might be best to move the examples from people and fetuses to animals. Would a starfish's distributed brain, for example, provide sufficient cognition that pain could then have an ethical weight and in turn affect research conducted on starfish. But since I'm not sure this topic will interest others, I'll reserve comment until interest is apparent.

I agree, which is part of why I chose this title for this thread when I split it off from the old one.

Speaking of the consciousness in animals is an interesting and difficult position. Just ask Descartes! The difficulty arises because the application of the ethical principle is based in some part on practical knowledge that we simply lack. It's a tough nut to crack, as consciousness is subjective, and it's not like we can just Voight-Kampff a starfish.

I'll say this at present: I do not know what level of cognition a starfish possesses, but that knowledge is absolutely ethically relevant to the treatment of starfish.

[Katie Skyye]

Why can't we eat horses?

Actually that's pretty interesting. I know someone already pointed out that the French ate horses up until relatively recently, but it basically came down to the point when we first started RIDING them. Prior to that, we ate them like cows. After that, it fell out of practice, because they became more valuable as mounts in a lot of cases. Not all, of course. My art history teacher equated it to 'forgetting that a sheep was good for anything besides wool.'

[Radical_Dreamer]

Not 6 months ago I walked into a restaurant in downtown Osaka and got horse straight off the menu. Where people do and don't eat horse is mainly a cultural thing.

[chi_z]

not to be an ass, but let's look at what we know scientifically. this person is using as the basis of their argument a chronicle of many books, that were 'pick n choose' based on what the government wanted people to see. written and mistranslated several times over, originating from some bedouins with a severe lack of vitamin c and god knows what else. with countless contradictions in its pages (just google no need to post them here). vs using logic and reason, not 3-4k years old mistranslation of a mistranslation of several books. I personally refuse to argue with anyone citing religious texts as a source of  scientific info, it's not. we can say when the brain begins to develop and go from there, always improving through science and an admittance that things may be completely different tomorrow with new discoveries, not that all things were set in stone forever by people 3k years ago who didn't even know what a 'google' or 'peer reviewed journal' or vitamin c or a friggin' microbe was.

it's our duty to do our own research but if you are one who is too lazy to even do that, should you not rely on people like einstein and tesla rather than bedouins from 2k bc and the like? you can say the bible claims this and that and form your ethical views off that, or you can join everyone else and become involved in science and philosophy (the love of knowledge, a willingness to admit you may be totally wrong, and a desire to want to correct yourself if you are wrong) whose opinions are based in science, logic, reason, observation.

[maggiekarp]

Is it all right to believe in the possibility of a god or some kind of sentient universe and still think abortions are a-ok?

[chi_z]

I don't see what the conflict is. Does your 'personal jesus' specifically say abortions are bad? anything on prenatal? rape/incest etc?

[tushantin]

Is it all right to believe in the possibility of a god or some kind of sentient universe and still think abortions are a-ok?

Yup!

I don't think the problem lies in believing in "God" (or even the Christian God), but what your principles say about abortions anyway. In the end, it all depends of principles, not just beliefs.

[Thought]

... written and mistranslated several times over, originating from some bedouins with a severe lack of vitamin c and god knows what else. with countless contradictions in its pages (just google no need to post them here). vs using logic and reason, not 3-4k years old mistranslation of a mistranslation of several books.

Here I must take umbrage as a historian. As far a reliable texts go, the Christian bible is one of the best. Now, by reliable I mean specifically that the text as we have it today is very similar to the text as it was written: in this I make no claim as to its internal consistency or validity. The reasons why the dead sea scrolls were such an impressive find is that they verified that the text of the Old Testament changed very between when the scrolls were created (70-ish CE) and when they were discovered (1949 CE). This was substantially far less than any document written at the period had reason to be. As for the New Testament, it is likewise vetted by the numerous quotations provided of it by the letters of the church fathers (and occasional mother). Because of writers like Origen, we can reconstruct the New Testament (and Old) from alternate sources.

To be fair, there have been translations of the bible, which inherently involves imprecision, although the number of outright mistranslations have been likewise impressively rare. Some words have a direct translation in another language (such as apple and pomme), but other words do not. Translators then have to try to convey the original meaning. This, however, starts messing with the original flow of the text.  Add to this the difficulty that languages change over time: a translation can thus accurately represent what a word meant at the time it was translated while still being misleading regarding what the word meant when it was written. So yes, translations of the bible are not perfect, but by far and large, they are damn good translations.

In short, you are more likely to be reading the author’s original intent when you read the bible than when you read Plato’s Symposium. You don't get consistency like we find in the bible (which isn't even too terribly unique among religious documents) until you get to the printing press.

Also, to note, argumentum ad hominem (such as your comments about vitamin C) have no place at the table when logic or reason preside.

[Thought]

I'll say this at present: I do not know what level of cognition a starfish possesses, but that knowledge is absolutely ethically relevant to the treatment of starfish.

This statement seems to indicate that in your perspective, ethical behavior is primarily dependent on the level of awareness of the object being acted upon. That is, it might be ethical (or, at least, non-ethical) to act a certain way to an unaware starfish that would be unethical to act to an aware starfish. Is that correct?

[Radical_Dreamer]

That is correct. If starfish have no awareness, no conscious experience, then what is ethically permissible in interacting with starfish is more broad than in the case that starfish are in fact self-aware.

[tushantin]

That is correct. If starfish have no awareness, no conscious experience, then what is ethically permissible in interacting with starfish is more broad than in the case that starfish are in fact self-aware.

And just for fun's sake, here comes Tushantin!  

Human beings can also lapse into lack  of awareness or conscious experiences despite remaining alive thanks to their involuntary respiratory. So if what you're saying is true, then it gives me a blank check to do whatever I want with them (including kill them); isn't that right?

But if that's the case, why do majority of physicians and doctors take a Hippocratic Oath that includes ethics pertaining to not harming these individuals despite their lack of awareness? Why is hurting such an individual considered "unethical"?

I don't mean to be rude or anything, RD, because your statement is quite a logical explanation, but the matter of ethics seem beyond logical capacities especially since rationalisation, despite the lack of plausibility, has the capacity to bend ethics in the favor of personal bias and need. Then again "ethics" have indeed been a basic need for human civilization.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Human beings can also lapse into lack  of awareness or conscious experiences despite remaining alive thanks to their involuntary respiratory. So if what you're saying is true, then it gives me a blank check to do whatever I want with them (including kill them); isn't that right?

Incorrect. For the second time in this thread, tushantin, I will refer you to what I have said previously in this thread:

I can see how you could come to that conclusion, but it is not my position. When I speak of a conscious entity, I don't necessarily mean an individual who is presently conscious. I mean an individual who poses is a consciousness, even if it is dormant at present. A week old embryo has never been conscious, and lacks the capacity to be conscious. A drugged woman has been conscious, and if she has not been given an over dose, likely will be again. She is still in possession of a consciousness.

I did not change my position on this topic in the time between my posts. Presented with my actual thoughts on the topic, it should be clear that your question is based on a faulty premise, so I hope you'll take no offense at my declining to answer it explicitly.

I don't mean to be rude or anything, RD, because your statement is quite a logical explanation, but the matter of ethics seem beyond logical capacities especially since rationalisation, despite the lack of plausibility, has the capacity to bend ethics in the favor of personal bias and need. Then again "ethics" have indeed been a basic need for human civilization.

Rationalization is done after the fact to justify actions, generally actions that are at odds with ones stated or held principles. My logical thoughts on the topic are meant to be preemptive, that is, if you consider the logic prior to acting, you should act consistently and do so in line with the logic presented.

Let us be clear here: That individuals rationalize their unethical choices to themselves does not mean logic has no place in determining ethical principals. Logic is necessary, along with evidence and reason, whenever we wish to solve a problem or deepen our understanding of a topic. Ethics is not an exception to this.

My goal for an ethical system is to maximize the well being of conscious entities. If you can think of a better set of tools to determine principals to bring about that goal than logic, evidence, and reason, you are welcome to argue for them. Of course, you might also argue that my goal for ethics is invalid. Again, if this is so, I'd love to hear why you consider that to be the case.

[Thought]

That is correct. If starfish have no awareness, no conscious experience, then what is ethically permissible in interacting with starfish is more broad than in the case that starfish are in fact self-aware.

Interesting. Here we have a divergence between us, as I tend to place more emphasis on the doer, rather than the subject. I find that this perspective allows one to more readily create general ethical guidelines, although this is perhaps merely the result of a misunderstanding of your own perspective.

For example, I propose that it is ethical to, in any action, minimize the pain that the action causes to the greatest reasonable extent. This is an ethic that we find fairly well ingrained in society. Ideally, for example, our animals are to be killed as painlessly as possible, regardless of if we're using them for food, science, or companionship, and regardless of this level of cognition. Regardless of if a creature can remember pain, or understand the context of pain, for creatures that can feel pain, it is unpleasant, even if only in the moment. Insofar that it is in our power to minimize that pain, it is our ethical obligation to do so.

Of course, this still does take into consideration the object of the action: I can't cause pain to a rock, so there is no ethical obligation to minimize the pain caused to that rock.

There is, of course, the flipside to this. Lack of cognition in the actor alters the ethics of the action. A cat lacks sufficient awareness to act ethically, and so when it fails to minimize pain by playing with a mouse, it does not act ethically or unethically, but rather "non-ethically."

To return to the rock, for a moment, we could likewise apply a general ethical principle to it as well. We might hold that it is unethical to destroy things without just cause. If so, then we could say that wantonly destroying rocks is unethical, regardless of if other human beings value it as art or not. Not that I expect this specific example to be a point of great significance in an ethical society, but the principle behind it well might be central.

[chi_z]

malnutrition is not an attack of character, it's an attack on credibility. can you really trust some dude with no food really saw god or just tripped balls? same thing with medival monks charged with the task of translation. no vitamin c or other nutrients during winter, they'd flog the piss outta themselves, voila psychedelic trip. some were smart enough to just use amanita muscaria, other cultures ahayuasca, but other than that it's like burning down the barn to cook bacon. sorry, when you trip balls you don't enter a new universe, your brain just has troubles interpreting everything properly cuz it's SOAKED IN POISON. can hardly take the words of such a person as scientific fact. was einstein high on lsd while he wrote the theory of relativity?