The "Moral Matrix"

[Verdad]

I don't have time to read the article right now, but I agree with you on the abortion issue. I'm really conflicted over this (so I tend to toss to the back of my mind only to be brought out if it challenges me directly). Intellectually I'm very much with the choice positions, but emotionally I can't escape that I fundamentally believe that a fetus is a person from sometime very early in the process there. And as much "choice" as I would like to be, there are times when I'd like to take the Octamoms of the world and fuse their thighs together so that their choice doesn't impign on my choices and so that that their offspring don't arrive terribly disadvantaged from the get go. I don't pretend I have answers on this issue that would make me comfortable.

My feelings about the woman's right to choose are not mixed one bit—an emphatic yes to that right—but the feelings Pilot expresses here are not foreign to me, so what I'd like to point out is that there's no real dissonance between having these feelings and supporting the woman's choice.

What's often lost in the dichotomization of the issue is that an abortion isn't a joyous event by anyone's standards. The 'pro choice' side is being portrayed as eager to gleefully whack in babies, or at least as seeing the procedure as something akin to having the tartar scrapped off one's teeth. Yet the truth—and I can promise that, even if I haven't been through it myself—is that no woman approaches the decision lightly.

No woman. If there are some that do, one should wonder how they'd treat the actual child.

The issue, however, is not whether abortion is a trivial event in a person's life or an alternative to contraception. No one in their right mind suggests it should be, and no one in their right mind encourages women to count on it because it's so much easier than remembering to use a condom. The issue is what happens after an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, and after the woman, confronted with two painful options, chooses the one she finds bearable.

Anyone willing to support this choice is not asked to jump up and down from joy or wear an "ABORTIONS ARE COOL" tee-shirt. They're merely asked to refrain from meddling in another person's decision—a decision that's as private as can be and as life-changing as can be—and perhaps to consider the world in which that decision would be taken away from the individual's hands.

 

[Verdad]

Many great, and some not so great, thinkers, have asked, and failed to answer the question to their satisfaction, "What is life?"

There is a somewhat easy answer to what is life, if you're willing to settle with something like "capable of metabolic processes".

The question pertinent to the issue of abortion is "what is human life", though, and that's a much trickier question.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My feelings about the woman's right to choose are not mixed one bit—an emphatic yes to that right—but the feelings Pilot expresses here are not foreign to me, so what I'd like to point out is that there's no real dissonance between having these feelings and supporting the woman's choice.

What's often lost in the dichotomization of the issue is that an abortion isn't a joyous event by anyone's standards. The 'pro choice' side is being portrayed as eager to gleefully whack in babies, or at least as seeing the procedure as something akin to having the tartar scrapped off one's teeth. Yet the truth—and I can promise that, even if I haven't been through it myself—is that no woman approaches the decision lightly.

No woman. If there are some that do, one should wonder how they'd treat the actual child.

The issue, however, is not whether abortion is a trivial event in a person's life or an alternative to contraception. No one in their right mind suggests it should be, and no one in their right mind encourages women to count on it because it's so much easier than remembering to use a condom. The issue is what happens after an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, and after the woman, confronted with two painful options, chooses the one she finds bearable.

Anyone willing to support this choice is not asked to jump up and down from joy or wear an "ABORTIONS ARE COOL" tee-shirt. They're merely asked to refrain from meddling in another person's decision—a decision that's as private as can be and as life-changing as can be—and perhaps to consider the world in which that decision would be taken away from the individual's hands.

As always, Verdad; Thank you.

This is exactly my position (but spoken much more temperately than I can do )

 

[mismused]

******

 

[DeeZire]

I may be giving pro-lifers too much credit, as a whole, but I honestly think their underlying motivation lies in the noble interests of protecting/nurturing the human potential.

I think you are giving pro-lifers too much credit. If they were truly interested in protecting/nurturing the human potential, they wouldn't be constantly cutting social programs that protect and nurture human potential.

 

[Recidiva]

I think you are giving pro-lifers too much credit. If they were truly interested in protecting/nurturing the human potential, they wouldn't be constantly cutting social programs that protect and nurture human potential.

I would at least assume every potential orphan in the world would be cared for before fund raising for this issue would become a priority.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I would at least assume every potential orphan in the world would be cared for before fund raising for this issue would become a priority.

And every battered child protected.

 

[3113]

I also fail to see how this presumed "matrix" for morality has anything to do with abortion. I mean, let's assume the thesis is correct--we're moral creatures as soon as sperm and egg meet. Um, okay. So why should that make us special or worth not killing? If our knowledge of right and wrong doesn't make us special enough that we shouldn't be killed when we're adults--and we are killing people in other lands right now and asserting that this is morally right--then why does it make that speck of protein so special?

But the thesis is bogus. Kev says:

he reveals modern research that shows (proves?) that at the earliest measurable stages of life, we have innate abilities to know and judge morality on a basic scale. Much of this is even shared with the (lower) animal kingdom. To paraphrase him, "newborns come into the world already knowing so much about their physical and social roles, and programming to make certain things easier or more difficult to learn."

Bullshit! First of all, what is morality at a "most basic scale"? what the fuck does that mean? Second who are these researchers and where is the research? You say it was done by reputable scientists, please prove this. Next, prove that what babies are being born with is morality. Male penguins nurture their young as devotedly as the females not because they're enlightened moral creatures, but because their species has that need, created by evolution and environment. Without both parents caring for an egg, warming it and feeding it, they'd be extinct. Meanwhile, a male lion will callously kill the offspring of another male when he claims a female, never caring that he's murdering innocent little kittens. It's not because male lions are horrifically immoral. They're predators, and predators are wired to do that, to make sure that their off-spring are the ones to reproduce and make the species better.

What is morality and what is species survival?

And by the way, if the research DOES prove that animals share this moral matrix, then by your argument we *must* give up killing animals--if a moral matrix is all something needs to make killing it wrong. This makes your patronizing tone toward Impressive's "rationalizing" about us killing animals hypocritical. YOU stated that the research shows that some animals have this same moral matrix. And you stated that if a fetus has this moral matrix, is shouldn't be killed. Why should we then be able to kill animals with this moral matrix but not a fetus?

Before you go any further with this argument, define "basic morality," and show us the research, prove that it was done by reputable scientists--and prove to us that this basic morality they insists exists before birth is morality and not something necessary to species survival. Then we'll talk about why it should or can be used to defend a bit of protein in the womb from being aborted.

 

[Verdad]

I also fail to see how this presumed "matrix" for morality has anything to do with abortion. I mean, let's assume the thesis is correct--we're moral creatures as soon as sperm and egg meet. Um, okay. So why should that make us special or worth not killing? If our knowledge of right and wrong doesn't make us special enough that we shouldn't be killed when we're adults--and we are killing people in other lands right now and asserting that this is morally right--then why does it make that speck of protein so special?

But the thesis is bogus. Kev says:

Bullshit! First of all, what is morality at a "most basic scale"? what the fuck does that mean? Second who are these researchers and where is the research? You say it was done by reputable scientists, please prove this. Next, prove that what babies are being born with is morality. Male penguins nurture their young as devotedly as the females not because they're enlightened moral creatures, but because their species has that need, created by evolution and environment. Without both parents caring for an egg, warming it and feeding it, they'd be extinct. Meanwhile, a male lion will callously kill the offspring of another male when he claims a female, never caring that he's murdering innocent little kittens. It's not because male lions are horrifically immoral. They're predators, and predators are wired to do that, to make sure that their off-spring are the ones to reproduce and make the species better.

What is morality and what is species survival?

And by the way, if the research DOES prove that animals share this moral matrix, then by your argument we *must* give up killing animals--if a moral matrix is all something needs to make killing it wrong. This makes your patronizing tone toward Impressive's "rationalizing" about us killing animals hypocritical. YOU stated that the research shows that some animals have this same moral matrix. And you stated that if a fetus has this moral matrix, is shouldn't be killed. Why should we then be able to kill animals with this moral matrix but not a fetus?

Before you go any further with this argument, define "basic morality," and show us the research, prove that it was done by reputable scientists--and prove to us that this basic morality they insists exists before birth is morality and not something necessary to species survival. Then we'll talk about why it should or can be used to defend a bit of protein in the womb from being aborted.

Great post, 3113. I wanted to address some of the emotional issues, but you have nailed all the logical points.

I'll take one of those points a step further, too, and say that no evidence will show up about the innate morality. I can say this pretty confidently because the assertion is improvable.

At the earliest stages of life we're discussing, and I would add, for quite a while longer, no test can be conducted that could prove the presence of something like 'morality'. Morality is a construct that can be approached only through indirect measurement, and an embryo can't participate in such measurement.

From the scientific POV, the most that can be said is that an embryo has the potential to develop in a human being, with everything that that entails, including morality.

That an embryo in time becomes a human being is hardly a novel idea, though, is it? The controversy is rather about when and why we should grant it rights equal or bigger than those of grown humans.

 

[amicus]

3113...reading your post I detect what I can only describe as a 'controlled explosion', although there is surely a better term, it won't pop for me at the moment.

I offer this, as a direction of thought, that may tamper down the rage that seems to be contained in your words.

It was a more simple time when 'life' was considered sacred, created by God, and thus the primary value, in a moral system based on belief.

Even then, as Jean Auel created in her Clan of the Cave Bear series, women knew which herbs to ingest to prevent and even mis carry a pregnancy. That may or not be fiction only, but it would not surprise me if it were true.

Modern society, since about the time of the Industrial Revolution, has looked more to science for answers, than to religion, to reason and knowledge instead of faith and belief.

I consider that, a logical progression of events and that progress continues in first world nations yet today.

A further, 'logical progression', is to understand that as man discovered his biological roots in evolution and began to acquire a rational understanding of the planet, the solar system, the universe, it was only proper and logical that he questioned the religous answers to those questions of creation. Also not surprising that man began to question the purpose of life, and...with reason replacing faith, what the 'values' of life, should/could/ought to be.

If that has enough clarity to be understandable and sufficient logic to be undeniable, then the rest of the equation is within the grasp of any that seek it.

Good Journey...

amicus...

 

[Pure]

very odd, indeed

a lecture whose main point is 'don't assume you have a monopoly on moral truth' is turned into a debate about :

1)is there an absolute truth never ever to take a human life?

2) if there is an absolute truth never to take a human life except in immediate defense of another life [including one's own], does that imply that no embryo should ever be aborted.

haidt is saying morality has five main dimensions, fairness, avoidance of harm, respect for authority, in-group solidarity, and purity. and he says liberals are kinda weak on the last three.

can anyone say how the latter three would tend to show 1)? is it because we respect the authority of the Pope? i know amicus would pick 'purity' as the issue: maybe it's 'impure' to kill another human?

yet of course NO ONE here supports 1), including amicus. exceptions being self defense, executions, wars and so on, not to say deaths from industrial pollution, bad drugs, etc.

as far as 2) goes, it directly yields the most obvious abortion justifciation, accepted by all but the most dogmatic Catholics: defense of life of the mother. amicus' position is unclear; i suspect he allows it.

but if, in fact there are MANY exceptions besides self defense, then the possibility of justification for ending the embryo's life could be broader, e.g. severe threat to the mental health of the mother (e.g if it's been a case of rape or incest).

again, such conservatives as Reagan supported rape incest exceptions, though i suspect amicus does not.

==
but surely this progressive complication PROVES the point haidt was making: in trying to figure out the truth of something do NOT assume you have a monopoly on the correct position. oddly, despite haidt's decision to chastize liberals, it only amicus here, self labeled conservative/libertarian who declares he has such a monopoly. and yet he's rather vague in crucial areas like rape and incest exceptions... i think because they're embarrassing.

 

[amicus]

As evidenced by the above and actually, every post you make, it is evident that you reject logic and reason as a means to establish a foundation for human actions, that is, a moral and ethical system of conduct.

You continue to rely on ideology and do the minimum amount of actual thinking to support it.

Were that not so, you would have no difficulty in understanding a rational extension of the primary value, life, in any reasonable system of morals.

The political expression of that value, the 'taking' of human life, tends to become more practical than purist, but even you should parse the connection between 'a life for a life', which is the basis for the death penalty, but, that like all things logical, is beyond you.

Amicus...

 

[Kev H]

My feelings about the woman's right to choose are not mixed one bit—an emphatic yes to that right—but the feelings Pilot expresses here are not foreign to me, so what I'd like to point out is that there's no real dissonance between having these feelings and supporting the woman's choice.

What's often lost in the dichotomization of the issue is that an abortion isn't a joyous event by anyone's standards. The 'pro choice' side is being portrayed as eager to gleefully whack in babies, or at least as seeing the procedure as something akin to having the tartar scrapped off one's teeth. Yet the truth—and I can promise that, even if I haven't been through it myself—is that no woman approaches the decision lightly.

No woman. If there are some that do, one should wonder how they'd treat the actual child.

The issue, however, is not whether abortion is a trivial event in a person's life or an alternative to contraception. No one in their right mind suggests it should be, and no one in their right mind encourages women to count on it because it's so much easier than remembering to use a condom. The issue is what happens after an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, and after the woman, confronted with two painful options, chooses the one she finds bearable.

Anyone willing to support this choice is not asked to jump up and down from joy or wear an "ABORTIONS ARE COOL" tee-shirt. They're merely asked to refrain from meddling in another person's decision—a decision that's as private as can be and as life-changing as can be—and perhaps to consider the world in which that decision would be taken away from the individual's hands.

Wow, Verdad, this is beautifully stated, and I certainly respect both what is said and how it is said.

A stark contrast to 3113's harsh demands--she once told me a couple years ago she was a logical person and based on what I had seen of her posts, I had no reason to doubt her. Now I wonder if she is more reactionary than intellectual. Scary how vehement a tone can come across from a collection of demands made out of misinformation/misunderstanding. If you, 3113, want the sources to Haidt's information (he quotes a researcher and shows a book by another researcher, both listed in previous posts of mine when talking with PP) then watch...the...speech. You are perfectly free to post yet again without doing so just because you like to vent at me, but know you are not doing yourself any favors and you may want to save your anger for some time when it might actually help you.

No, there is no contradiction between showing some animals seem to share some of that instinct with Haidt labels as moral, and asking Imp to expand and clarify her post. Reread what you thought you read, please.

And for the third or fourth time, I understand his speech had no correlation with abortion, and I was clear that part of what he said struck me as relevant, which was why I mentioned it. This is what I said: "I'd like to begin with more insight into a hot topic that's been bothering me..." I didn't say he talked about it, as both you and (I think) pure assumed I claimed, but that he gave me insight (now I'm not so sure how valid it is, based on PP's response and link to Nativism).

I also mentioned wanting to discuss other points which arise from the speech (which I have in later posts). I challenge you to be a constructive participant to the discuss; I can't do anything with you but plead that you contribute intellectually (without feeling like you have to be an attack dog for whatever reason).

 

[Kev H]

I think you are giving pro-lifers too much credit. If they were truly interested in protecting/nurturing the human potential, they wouldn't be constantly cutting social programs that protect and nurture human potential.

This is possibly true, heh; I sometimes have a problem being too optimistic about people--I like to at least give them the chance to be better than they seem to be. But, let me suggest that the parallels you draw may not be accurate, that there is not a perfect intersection between pro-lifers and those who want to cut our noble social programs (sure, there are some, but I personally know pro-lifers who want better education and more effective programs to help people). Don't you think that's painting with a rather broad brush? Please be fair about it (even if that's more than "they" deserve).

For example, being against abortions (even actively through social/community pressure) in no way means they want to reduce our hospital quality (or that they aren't actively trying to make it better), or our education system (which you'd think most pro-lifers would absolutely be for better education since they care about the little ones; hell, I don't know many who aren't for better education, come to think of it). Are there specific examples I'm unaware of?

 

[Kev H]

a lecture whose main point is 'don't assume you have a monopoly on moral truth' is turned into a debate about :

1)is there an absolute truth never ever to take a human life?

2) if there is an absolute truth never to take a human life except in immediate defense of another life [including one's own], does that imply that no embryo should ever be aborted.

haidt is saying morality has five main dimensions, fairness, avoidance of harm, respect for authority, in-group solidarity, and purity. and he says liberals are kinda weak on the last three.

can anyone say how the latter three would tend to show 1)? is it because we respect the authority of the Pope? i know amicus would pick 'purity' as the issue: maybe it's 'impure' to kill another human?

yet of course NO ONE here supports 1), including amicus. exceptions being self defense, executions, wars and so on, not to say deaths from industrial pollution, bad drugs, etc.

as far as 2) goes, it directly yields the most obvious abortion justifciation, accepted by all but the most dogmatic Catholics: defense of life of the mother. amicus' position is unclear; i suspect he allows it.

but if, in fact there are MANY exceptions besides self defense, then the possibility of justification for ending the embryo's life could be broader, e.g. severe threat to the mental health of the mother (e.g if it's been a case of rape or incest).

again, such conservatives as Reagan supported rape incest exceptions, though i suspect amicus does not.

==
but surely this progressive complication PROVES the point haidt was making: in trying to figure out the truth of something do NOT assume you have a monopoly on the correct position. oddly, despite haidt's decision to chastize liberals, it only amicus here, self labeled conservative/libertarian who declares he has such a monopoly. and yet he's rather vague in crucial areas like rape and incest exceptions... i think because they're embarrassing.

That's one odd-sounding hat you're talking through, pure. Please, man, don't pick a fight with amicus here. You two have tons of other places to spare in--I've seen some great posts by you in the past, so I know what you are capable of. So, please? Do you honestly feel Haidt's covered topics aren't worth serious discussion?

What I've witnessed a few times on this board is a ganging up on an idea (or person) that tends to shut down all positive discussion. People who are normally reasonable feel emboldened (or something) and feel more comfortable being ugly (or they work each other into a frenzy).

Another very relevant quote from this speech occurs at 3:09: "...if our goal is to understand the world, to seek a deeper understanding of the world, our general lack of moral diversity here is going to make it harder, because when people all share values, when people all share morals, they become a team. And once you engage the psychology of teams, it shuts down open-minded thinking." Food for thought.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is possibly true, heh; I sometimes have a problem being too optimistic about people--I like to at least give them the chance to be better than they seem to be. But, let me suggest that the parallels you draw may not be accurate, that there is not a perfect intersection between pro-lifers and those who want to cut our noble social programs (sure, there are some, but I personally know pro-lifers who want better education and more effective programs to help people). Don't you think that's painting with a rather broad brush? Please be fair about it (even if that's more than "they" deserve).

For example, being against abortions (even actively through social/community pressure) in no way means they want to reduce our hospital quality (or that they aren't actively trying to make it better), or our education system (which you'd think most pro-lifers would absolutely be for better education since they care about the little ones; hell, I don't know many who aren't for better education, come to think of it). Are there specific examples I'm unaware of?

Well, it's a function of our political system. Liberals tend to support women's choice-- and they also tend to support public programs that help living children grow and learn.

People who don't think women should have the right to make their own choices also tend to be punitive in other ways as well. And there is a damn big difference between "pro life" and "Anti-choice," which is what most of them are.

People who genuinely believe that all fetuses have a right to life-- as opposed to believing that abortion should be against the law-- those people might be willing to put their time and energy into making sure those fetuses are born into a world that is decently able to contain them.

But how many anti-choicers have you talked to that can say that they've adopted unwanted babies, or created schools or programs for unwanted children? Some? Lots? Two?

 

[Stella_Omega]

f our goal is to understand the world, to seek a deeper understanding of the world, our general lack of moral diversity here is going to make it harder, because when people all share values, when people all share morals, they become a team. And once you engage the psychology of teams, it shuts down open-minded thinking." Food for thought.

Ami's going to love chewing on that one!

 

[Kev H]

Ami's going to love chewing on that one!

I hope you're also chewing, Stella. I know I am. And notice that this key point (coming directly after his humorous map of "Dumbfuckistan") sets up his main point (which leads to that awesome section about the Tao/Hindu/Buddha insights).

As for your previous post, I really don't want to set up defensive lines and narrow down into specific (limited) examples if I can help it. Can you not see how these things aren't necessarily related if you step outside of stereotyping mentality? I absolutely know people who would outlaw abortion (for all but rape and impending death cases, I think, and they know how relatively rare those are) and have either adopted children themselves, or who grew up with some because their parents adopted, or dedicated much of their time to teaching (both in public schools and homeschooling), or who would at least tell me that they give to charity and support things like homeless shelters. (My admission: I don't know so many anti-choice people that I can claim to be objective, but the percentage is high among those I know well enough to talk about; I realize full well that my percentage may be high because I don't choose to hang around any of the other kind.)

How do you find this a function of our political system? More closely to what I'm trying to get at is how can you honestly claim anti-choice people "tend to be punitive in other ways"? (Heh, am I going to be sorry I asked?) I have trouble believe those types don't want children to grow up in a better (and more stable, which remember is highly valued by them, even if you don't share that value as much) world--they express it all the time (often in ways you don't like, like dreaming about the nuclear/two-parent home for everyone and the supportive community, even if that's comprised mostly of churches). Hell, even the major churches have spent crazy amounts of money building and supporting orphanages (let's not get into whether the reality was as good as the concept, or any such rabbit trail). As misguided as they may be, anti-choice people don't want children to grow up uneducated and unhappy, for the most part, do they?

I propose this: open-minded people, in general, are more likely to value liberty/choice, while close-minded people are likely to value stability. Our political system, such that it can be described as a cohesive, consistent beast (which we know it isn't), is a complex mix of those traits that defy realistic, clear lines of distinction. We know plenty of liberals who don't support abortion (do I really need to name names here?), and also libertarians (who are mostly conservative) who have no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade. Blurry lines? You bet. When you try to sharpen the distinctions with broad prejudices, I submit that you are closing your own mind (and, heh, two closed minds don't make an open mind).

A humorous (I hope) example: my dentist office is filled with fundies--as if going to the dentist weren't bad enough, I have to listen to horrendous Christian "rock" music and hear them babble about church activities and shit. Unfortunately for me, I had put off dentistry for about ten years and had to get about 8 fillings over a period of three months. These people don't hate their children or anyone's children, nor do they want them to be stupid or unhappy--they were always planning parties (even alternative Halloween parties with candy and whatever they do there, maybe pin the tail on Jesus). They talked about saving for college, and how scared they were now that so-and-so was driving. They would do big charity functions and involve the children so they would hopefully see the value of charity. And every one of them, beyond a doubt, would vote to make abortions illegal. I wouldn't hang out with these people or go to their church, but I know that their beliefs are coming from a positive attempt to make the world better for everyone, including the unborn.

 

[freshface]

People who genuinely believe that all fetuses have a right to life-- as opposed to believing that abortion should be against the law-- those people might be willing to put their time and energy into making sure those fetuses are born into a world that is decently able to contain them.

But how many anti-choicers have you talked to that can say that they've adopted unwanted babies, or created schools or programs for unwanted children? Some? Lots? Two?

For that matter, how many people opposed to abortion can say that they support comprehensive sex education? Seems to me that if you really want to decrease abortions, you make certain that every woman has a solid understanding of how to prevent pregnancy and easy access to contraception. It says a great deal about them that the people most stridently against abortion are often equally opposed to birth control or education.

 

[Pure]

?

kev: That's one odd-sounding hat you're talking through, pure. Please, man, don't pick a fight with amicus here. You two have tons of other places to spare in--I've seen some great posts by you in the past, so I know what you are capable of. So, please? Do you honestly feel Haidt's covered topics aren't worth serious discussion?

What I've witnessed a few times on this board is a ganging up on an idea (or person) that tends to shut down all positive discussion. People who are normally reasonable feel emboldened (or something) and feel more comfortable being ugly (or they work each other into a frenzy).
=============

that is rather unfair. i'm the only poster to summarize haidt's main points and that includes you. further i've suggested, and several others agree, --Verdad, 3113-- that these points don't help much to resolve the abortion issues: neither going beyond 'for and against' as in the zen quote you like, or the five dimensions of morality, are much use.

further, it's i who introduced at least three other topics, e.g. assisted suicide, for discussion, in relation to haidt's suggestions. and it's you who are fixated on 'choice' issues *while at the same time admitting they aren't related particularly to haidt's main points!*

let me propose another clear application of haidt's approach and points. unless there are enemy troops swarming into your neighborhood, it's wrong to try to kill them OR their supporters. IOW every time an army goes to a far, foreign land and starts killing, e.g. US in Grenada under Reagan, or US in Iraq under little Bush, they do wrong. immediate self defense (including [the self-related] one's wife/husband/child/neighbor) is the only justification for taking a life.

well, it's a simple application of the 'no harm' principle beloved of us so-called liberals (actually, of course, i'm not a liberal but a social democrat)). FURTHER, it's an application of the conservatives' beloved *purity* principle: you become impure if you, not in self defense, take a life, either [for example] by going to iraq, OR participating in a hanging or lethal injection back home.

so, kev, ami, others, if the infant is so glorious, and life is sacred, then as stella and deezire, among others, have said, doesn't it follow that one does all to make lives worth living, such as gives the kid--in an abundant society-- medicine and food and education [public form of which is opposed by amicus].

further you don't, as in done in the US, recruit the jobless teen in appalachia and send him or her to Iraq to die fighting 'terror'.

and if perchance he or she kills someone at home, you don't exact 'eye for eye' and kill [execute] them, once they're in custody [ie. capital penalty].

AND, in reference to my earlier point, if said youngster, far up the road, become terminally ill with bone cancer, and lucidly decides to end his or her life, you make it *legal* for a physician to assist, i.e. say, 'here's your 100 phenobarbital capsules, take them if you want to die.'

all the above are positions that flow from respect for life, non-harm, sacredness of life, 'purity'. YET many at these boards--likely you, kev-- do not support them.

NOTE: i will be VERY interested, KEV, if you can get the abortion bee out of your bonnet and say *anything* about any of haidt's main points applied elsewhere, including in the areas/issues i've described, above.

 

[DeeZire]

More closely to what I'm trying to get at is how can you honestly claim anti-choice people "tend to be punitive in other ways"?

The first thing our anti-choice governor did when she took over Janet Napalitano's vacated seat was cut funding for at-risk children and eliminate day-care subsidies for working single parents. Janet Napalitano had proposed a budget that avoided these cuts before she left for Washington, but our appointed governor Janet Brewer (another big-haired wingnut ala Katherine Harris from Florida) tossed it. She's also on a mission to defund public education and enforce stricter guidelines for approving medicare for the poor, and if it wasn't so freakin' late, I'd add to the list. The offensive part is the fact that she's replacing a very popular Dem governor, and she's going on a Republican rampage, totally ignoring the will of the voters.

If you prefer to fein ignorance at the punitive nature of the Right, that's your choice, but I don't think ignoring reality furthers the discussion at hand.

But you asked...

 

[amicus]

Hell, I went to Chicago, got my name on a sign and didn't even know it; then, I see, I am given more than passing attention here, without notification, such a deal!

In the event y'all don't make it over to the thread where this lil mini masterpiece was given birth in an extemporaneous manner, and because this thread needs to 'lighten up', a little, be my guest to rip into this little gem:

~~~

SPA...thank you for taking the time to explain your positions and defend them.

I could spend ten pages on each of the three positions you outlined to lead you, step by step, towards an understanding of what it means to approach a problem on a rational, objective basis in which one discards all belief and personal preferences.

I shall, however, address just one:


Quote:
"...We obviously disagree on the definition of "human life." I do not believe human life begins at conception. I do not believe a fertilized egg or a fetus is a person and I do believe that the host for such a non-human has a right to have that non-human removed if she wants to do so. The exact instant at when life begins is a sticking point that can probably never be resolved so the discussion is pointless since neither side will concede to the other..."



You can 'believe' that the moon, each year, moves an inch and a half farther away from earth, or, you can, 'know' that as a fact.

You can 'believe' whatever you wish about when human life begins, or you can 'know.' I prefer to know, rather than believe, as I suggest all rational people do.

Medical science is a wonderful thing, doncha think? Science tells us that each girl baby, still in the womb, carries about 400, give or take, 'eggs' within her tiny body, each one carrying a complete genetic code of the mother/father and the entire ancestral history of her line, plus her own genetic additions to the DNA. I find that so amazing to be almost miraculously complex and complicated.

You know about the birds and bees of course, how those little eggs wait for hormonal changes and growth, before detaching, one at a time, (usually) and making that long, long journey towards an uncertain future.

In many cases all those little eggs will live and die, unfullfilled, for a variety of reasons.

But through a marvelous, natural occurence, their is a complimentary device that nature provides in great excess, them lil wiggly bastards called spermatazoa, also very complex and complicated, but produced in the billions, and still the miracle continues in that the entire genetic code is included in each one of the wiggly little rascals...such a deal, eh?

Then there is that thing the poets (I am one) write about, a silly little thing called....wait for it....mutual attraction, also kind of a miracle in the vastness of existence that complimentary parts seek each other out...great, eh?

There be a lot of posturing and coyness, alas, time consuming, painful perhaps and timing is of the essence in this creation dance that is the music of the universe, great stuff, eh?

Well...my little homily is coming to an end, but is really a prelude to a kiss, ah, naw, thas a song...a prologue, an overture...to the main event.

Now....destroy for me, with your practical definition, this long and winding road(song) to that critical moment when the earth moves and the whole becomes more than the sum of the parts.

Medical science will prove to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that when sperm and egg meet, a new, totally unique, never been seen before in all of time, entity, human entity, human life, is created.

Thas a fact, Jack, hit the road, toad, game over, you lose.

What's next?



amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Kev. you missed where I said there were people who are pro life and therefore against abortions-- i think they are wrong, but at least they are wrong for a right reason.

Then there are people who are anti-choice, and they are wrong twice.

*shrug*

 

[Pure]

Medical science will prove to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that when sperm and egg meet, a new, totally unique, never been seen before in all of time, entity, human entity, human life, is created.

Thas a fact, Jack, hit the road, toad, game over, you lose.

no, amicus, you lose, since you care not a whit if such 'entity' [person? individual?] has access to free medical care or public education.

you care not a whit is s/he imbibes mercury from the industrial plant up river, since you oppose emissions regulations by the evil gov't.

you'll talk to said 'entity' as a teen, about abstinence, but you wouldn't want to gov't to provide her [and sexually active friends] a vaccine against HPV, and maybe prevent her getting cervical cancer.

and if said invaluable individual should, one friday night, get a bit drunk and kill another person, you don't hesitate to march him or her to the gallows.

==
incidentally, as a point of US constitutional law, 'entities' [fertilized eggs] are not covered or even spoken of, just persons. and as ayn rand pointed out, the fertilized egg, like the embryo or young fetus [first and second trimester], is definitely NOT a human person, but [only] potentially one.

 

[Kev H]

NOTE: i will be VERY interested, KEV, if you can get the abortion bee out of your bonnet and say *anything* about any of haidt's main points applied elsewhere, including in the areas/issues i've described, above.

I have no bee, nor do I have a bonnet, pure, and I wonder if you have issue paying attention or following a thread, since, not only is this topic new (it's not like I've been hounding this topic for weeks or months or years), but I've mentioned a few other points from the speech that you simply ignored or didn't read. (And yes, I saw your summaries, and realize you are probably one of the few who bothered to watch the video and I mostly agree with your summary of the speech, as shown later in this post; I didn't want to begin by trying to summarize because that lets people form their comfortable prejudices and justification for not bothering to watch the link.) What's the point of me wanting to talk about this with you (and others) if you don't bother doing anything more than lashing out from an overly defensive stance? Are you trying to prove to me how futile it is to talk with you? Since you may or may not have missed my previous points, here's a copy of other talking points.


Perspective:

"I made it clear to anyone with reading comprehension that my post was not a summary of the speech, that there were plenty more points of interest. The most fascinating point to me involves the perspective-gaining positions of viewing the value of both extremes. Of expanding your worldview, in essence, to understand the moral priorities of each mindset, and their value to us as humans. The 700ish C.E. quote from the Zen master Sent-ts’an is quite loaded and well thought out, wouldn't you say? So, if you rephrase your convoluted questioning from the standpoint of one who understands my post wasn’t a diatribe, but rather talking points, then I’ll be happy to answer/discuss with you."

[Related to stepping outside the "moral matrix"--this was simply a question/proposal:] "I propose this: open-minded people, in general, are more likely to value liberty/choice, while close-minded people are likely to value stability. Our political system, such that it can be described as a cohesive, consistent beast (which we know it isn't), is a complex mix of those traits that defy realistic, clear lines of distinction. We know plenty of liberals who don't support abortion (do I really need to name names here?), and also libertarians (who are mostly conservative) who have no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade. Blurry lines? You bet. When you try to sharpen the distinctions with broad prejudices, I submit that you are closing your own mind (and, heh, two closed minds don't make an open mind)."


Built-in morals vs the blank slate:

"Again, I encourage you to watch it with an open mind, as I feel you might have some very interesting comments about it, especially the concepts involving "for" and "against" mentalities that some of the eastern religions seem to grasp, and what he actually says in this speech about basic programmed moral predispositions..."

"In this speech, he shows a book of developmental psychology research(?) called The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, and I can only assume this is where he bases these views on (along with his own experiences/understandings as a psychologist). I don't know all about this subject and who is fringe and who isn't, but I'll take what he says with a grain of salt." [In response to PP's mention of Nativism]

"...(now I'm not so sure how valid it is, based on PP's response and link to Nativism)..." [I intend to look into Nativism and how it fits with the latest research.]

"I tend to agree with you, that if what this speaker claims is true, then we certainly are born/programmed with varying combinations of it..." [Indeed he mentions an analogy to a multi-channel equalizer when discussing the combinations of these morals, but I'm still not sure I agree with him that those later concepts like purity are built into us at birth.]


The pitfall of the team mentality (now isn't this fascinating if you link this to his moral #3--what does this tell you?):

*"Another very relevant quote from this speech occurs at 3:09: '...if our goal is to understand the world, to seek a deeper understanding of the world, our general lack of moral diversity here is going to make it harder, because when people all share values, when people all share morals, they become a team. And once you engage the psychology of teams, it shuts down open-minded thinking.' Food for thought."


To pure concerning the target of this speech, conservatives, and his intolerance of anything amicus-related:

"I hope I've been clearer in the last post that this was only one talking point, and yes, my first point could be seen as non-essential to Haidt's main topic (yet does that invalidate it?), so I'd certainly love to cover other issues with you and anyone who would like to weight in. I did not want to imply that Haidt's points were only valid for liberals, but remember he had a mostly liberal audience for the speech (and unless Dobson's type is doing research on the "enemy," he'd not even see this video, most likely). Also, understand that high-minded liberals offer the best hope, by virtue of their example, for evolving the human species for the better (in fact, isn't that the gist of what TED is all about?), for showing more conservative thinkers that it's okay to loosen up their stranglehold on/against reason (in a sense, to give their blind faith a rest for a moment).

Conservatives, by their very nature, are not completely opposed to a cautious form of change, but I agree with Haidt that they will sacrifice it for stability. They often seem so unmoving (especially relative to progressives) since their change may happen over many generations or may even be only a fraction of the progress they hope for (they use the fear of losing their stability as a check-balance, and I honestly cannot fault that reasoning, in and of itself). Often their ideals are stated like "this is the way it is and the way it will always be," but I believe this is more of a reactionary stance to the threat of too fast a change than something they believe in to the core (some are even scientists, after all).

In summary, let's say, completely hypothetically, that your enemy (amicus) is completely unwilling to examine these values, and even has the audacity to ridicule you for thinking in these terms. Is this a good excuse for not thinking this way? Does this justify entrenchment and warfare against him? Please let me know what you think."

[Should I always headline the topics like this when going forward in this thread?]

The "moral matrix":

Haidt and a colleague studied similarities across several different disciplines (he briefly mentions them in the speech, so I have no need to repeat them here) to find five common threads among us that seem to be innate. I'm not sure I agree with him about some of these, but they all certainly seem to be strong traits in adult humans.

The first he calls "harm/care," saying we have strong feelings about those who cause harm, which ties into the implication of our natural nurturing urges (here he shows a mother monkey and her child, implying we have this in common with other animals). He won't find much argument from me here--I guess evolution has bred this trait into us very thoroughly before we ever collected into tribes (it stands to reason that those who did not have these strong values became extinct).

The second common trait he calls "fairness/reciprocity." He admits you cannot readily find this among lower animals, but it's almost universal among humans (the Golden Rule, that has versions in every single culture). I'm not really sure why he claims this is built-in to us at birth--anyone have any insights on this one?

The third trait is labeled "in-group/loyalty," which is also shared with many animals who have a pack mentality (he showed a picture of wolves). Anyone who has hung around larger dogs like Labs/Goldens have seen their programming. They naturally vie for an order, for boundaries, in a sense, before finding them and settling comfortably in their roles (it's like they are less comfortable about life until they know their place). He believes this trait might have come from our tribal days (and I imagine tribes that did not have this as a solid concept also went extinct). I also believe it comes from common sense the second a person realizes they aren't the center of existence (and I find this hard to believe it's innate, vs. one of life's first lessons).

On this "in-group" trait, note the intellectual conflict with open-mindedness (if you take his quote I listed above after the * at face value). Can one be open-minded and still be firmly a part of a team? Does loyalty conflict directly with the ability to drop the "us vs. them" mentality? Conservatives value this trait far more than liberals, according to Haidt's research--coincidence? So, do we possibly have a current impasse between the values of loyalty and open-mindedness?

Anyway, the forth trait he calls "authority/respect." Again he implies our similarity to apes via a picture comparison. I have a very hard time swallowing this point as innate to us, though I see certain aspects of it tied into the group/loyalty trait. I mean, authority among primates is won by brute force (if it was innate, why would the strongest one always have to kick the asses of the weaker ones?). While he has a good point that out trait differs from apes in that we often give it voluntarily (out of deference or even love), how does this follow that we exhibit this trait at birth (differentiated from our learned behavior of what we need to do to survive--a baby that shuns any adult trying to give it a bottle or a tit always died until the modern science era, but isn't this simply learned from the expansion of survival instinct)?

The last trait is termed "purity/sanctity," in the sense that we all seem to have an ideology of obtaining virtue (a higher sense of self) through discipline (and often related to sacrifice/restraint). From my limited experiences, this would seem to be the least natural trait of them all (perhaps why he saved it to last, since it was the hardest sell and he already wanted everyone to be nodding when he broached the point). I see kids all the time who have absolutely no sense of this--they play in the mud, they abuse playmates for the fun of it, they would never wash their hands or bodies unless forced, etc. I don't see anything other than the potential to be pure (to learn the concept before they stumble upon something that makes them impure, by established standard)--perhaps, the concept of purity arose only after the advent of non-practical creativity (art), when the human mind began to grasp a new concept that had nothing to do with survival, but with feeling elevated. Thoughts?

So, while these seem like great topics to discuss and ponder, they aren't even anything more than the foundation of Haidt's speech. He tries to convince us each one of these traits contribute to our humanity, and while these morals seem to split us into ideological camps, it's important to have tolerance and dialog with the other camp to truly move forward. If you've watched the speech, did he sell this concept to you? Why or why not?