Hello there, I'm an atheist

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:38 pm

TheEditor wrote:The "viability" and "use of body" arguments have never really interested nor impressed me. Anyone with children knows they aren't truly "viable" until about age 4. Maybe one could take an exceptionally bright child and find them nuking a box of mac and cheese at age 3. But they'd still need the box. If you leave an infant on the floor, it will soon be dead.

We use our "bodies" all of the time for various reasons. These terms are just ways of dodging the real issue--responsibility. Men need to own up to spreading their seed. A woman needs to own up to being pregnant. The cases of rape and incest are a distraction because anyone that reads the numbers knows the vast majority of abortions are had by married women. If we were of an avian variety, what of the abortion debate then? I am old enough to remember the "unviable tissue mass" arguments that swayed public opinion. Notice how that hasn't been used for decades now?

Regards, Brenden.
You are using the word viable in a different sense than I am. An unviable child requires the active support of another person's body. Not just help eating and changing. Using your definition no one is 'viable' because we are social cooperative creatures dependent on the society we live in and mutual support for our survival.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by TheEditor » Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:56 pm

Hi,

Thanks for responding. I believe you are stretching the definition of "viability" to counter my argument. I stated no such broad philosophical definition. I am referring to one child and one mother. A baby is not viable until they can care for themselves to some degree. Of course, if a person brings a child into the world they are acknowledging a responsibility to care for that child, and would be negligent if they did as I stated in my example. However, viability is part of a continuum; Feeding a child and keeping it safe from exposure is part of it. If such responsibility for maintaining the viability of that child does not cease with birth, how can it cease before?

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by Homer » Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:13 pm

It is extremely difficult for an atheist when it comes to establishing a system of ethics. Consider whether it is rational to be moral; the following provides an example of the difficulty:

John and Mary live in a country that has been overrun and occupied by a neighboring dictator. John and Mary have been taken into custody by the secret police and have mistakenly been accused of aiding the resistance. Neither has been involved with the resistance or collaborated with the occupational forces. The secret police offer both John and Mary two options: to confess to working for the resistance or not to confess. They are offered the following deal. If one confesses and the other does not, the "confessor" goes scot free while the "non-confessor" goes to prison for ten years; if both confess they both go to prison for five years; if neither confesses both go to prison for one year.

The situation can be represented by the following payoff scenarios:

1. Neither John nor Mary confesses = both go to prison for one year

2. John and Mary both confess = both go to prison for five years

3. John confesses, Mary does not = John goes scot free, Mary goes to prison for ten years

4. Mary confesses, John does not = Mary goes scot free, John goes to prison for ten years

We naturally assume that John and Mary have the following preferences. First preference = go scot free; second preference = go to prison one year; third preference = go to prison five years; fourth preference = go to prison ten years.

So John and Mary are left to think the matter over and they make an agreement not to confess. The question is this. Is it in the interest of John and Mary to keep their agreement? In other words, is it rational for them to be "moral" in this situation?

Much depends on whether they can confess in secret without the other's knowledge. If John finds out that Mary has broken their agreement and confessed, he will also confess in order to avoid the worst outcome for him, that is, ten years in prison while Mary goes scot free. And Mary will do the same if she finds out John has confessed. Thus if they know what each is doing it seems assured they will keep their agreement and each get one year in prison in order to avoid the case where each gets five years.

But suppose the secret police separate John and Mary, they are in separate cells, and they can confess secretly? That their decision is independent of each other's? There is a plausible argument to the effect that it is to their advantage to confess and break the agreement. Look at it from John's point of view: "Either Mary will confess or she won't. If she confesses, I must confess to avoid ten years in prison. And if she doesn't confess, then again it is advantageous to me to confess, for I will go scot free. Either way confession is advantageous to me." And the same thinking applies to Mary in her decision. If it is indeed prudent for each prisoner to confess, thus breaking their agreement, being moral is not prudent in this case, i.e., not to the advantage of each individual.

But it must be noted that if there is a God of the Christian sort, the payoff scenarios do not reflect the cost of violating the demands of the God to whom we all must give an account for what we have done.

Secular moral theories have a difficult time showing that it pays to be moral.

(The above adapted from "The Shape of the Good" by C. Stephen Layman.)

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:03 am

TheEditor wrote:Hi,

Thanks for responding. I believe you are stretching the definition of "viability" to counter my argument. I stated no such broad philosophical definition. I am referring to one child and one mother. A baby is not viable until they can care for themselves to some degree. Of course, if a person brings a child into the world they are acknowledging a responsibility to care for that child, and would be negligent if they did as I stated in my example. However, viability is part of a continuum; Feeding a child and keeping it safe from exposure is part of it. If such responsibility for maintaining the viability of that child does not cease with birth, how can it cease before?

Regards, Brenden.
Hello there,

I don't have lots of time to respond but my stretch of viability was a response ad absurdum of your stretch of viability. When I stated an unborn baby is viable or not, I was referring to it's physical dependency on the mother's body. That is the point where another human being can't help and the mother has to be willing to allow her body to be used. What you did was point out that infants and toddlers are pretty helpless. However they don't ordinarily need blood transfusions, or similar direct body linkages to survive. They can be fostered off at that point. So that kind of 'non viability' is similar to the communal system we are all in.

The objection you raise to my redefinition of viability is exactly the same one I raise to your redefinition.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:14 am

@Homer,

It's an interesting restatement you offer of the prisoner's dilemma. However I would point out that the situation requires that information be denied John and Mary while they make their decision. In fact, in a true prisoner's dilemma it is critical to keep the prisoners from communicating to prevent them from making the optimal arrangement of both not confessing.

Many times I've outlined the basic formula for ethics, minimize harm maximize well being. In this case the minimal harm, 2 years in prison, is the result that is moral. Since you list John and Mary as being able to talk it over then it is obvious they would agree to both refuse to admit their guilt.

What about the secrecy though? Well in this case we also need to ask what is the relationship between John and Mary? Will they want to remain friends or partners after this ordeal? If so, then they would need to weigh the damage to that relationship against their desire to avoid one year of prison time. I know I would stick to my deal, I suspect you would stick to yours, and I don't need the threat of some eternal punishment to decide to do so.

In order for this case to make sense as a imputation of atheist ethics, there needs to be a demonstration that the threat of punishment discourages immoral behavior. However, how can one claim to be a moral actor, if they do the 'right thing' because they fear punishment, as opposed to doing the right thing, because it is the right thing. I believe the second person is the truly moral person.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by TheEditor » Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:53 am

Greetings,

Fair enough. But it still doesn't answer the basic question I had:

If such responsibility for maintaining the viability of that child does not cease with birth, how can it cease before?

Regards, Brenden.

[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:11 pm

TheEditor wrote:Greetings,

Fair enough. But it still doesn't answer the basic question I had:

If such responsibility for maintaining the viability of that child does not cease with birth, how can it cease before?

Regards, Brenden.

The basic question is invalid. Your definition of viability precluses the application as you describe it.

Do you believe placing a child for adoption is immoral if the child is still an infant?

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by TheEditor » Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:41 pm

The basic question is invalid. Your definition of viability precluses the application as you describe it.
Do you believe placing a child for adoption is immoral if the child is still an infant?



I must be a bit thick. I don't know what the word "precluses" means. I will assume you meant "precludes"--invalidates. I am not sure how "viability" (the ability to survive) as I am qualifying it here (eg. mother allows fetus to be nurtured within her womb--mother allows birthed fetus/infant to suckle her breasts) "invalidates" the application. Help me here.

As for adoption; how does one follow the other? My view of adoption is that if a person is not capable of rearing a child, then a close family member should be the logical succesor. If one is not available or willing (though I think that if they can, they should be willing, at least morally) then adoption to a more suitable home is prefereable to rearing by someone incapable.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

dizerner

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by dizerner » Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:09 pm

TheEditor wrote:I must be a bit thick. I don't know what the word "precluses" means. I will assume you meant "precludes"--invalidates. I am not sure how "viability" (the ability to survive) as I am qualifying it here (eg. mother allows fetus to be nurtured within her womb--mother allows birthed fetus/infant to suckle her breasts) "invalidates" the application. Help me here.
From his statement "they don't ordinarily need... direct body linkages to survive" it seems he wants to make two distinct kinds of viability: the ability to exist with or without the mother's body in theory, that is, it could exist outside if someone else were to care for it. But that makes me wonder, is there anything like an artificial womb that's been developed? Would the development of an artificial womb that the fetus could be transplanted to make the mother's actions less moral?

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:04 pm

Brenden,

My apologies for the spelling error. I'm using my phone and a small screen. You guessed my word correctly. When I say viable I am using the word in the specific context of pregnancy where a fetus is nonviable unless it can survive without the direct assistance of the mother's body.

In the after birth examples you use another person than the mother can offer all the needed care. Much of the care can even be provided mechanically. I asked about adoption to see if you had moral objections to it and to underline the difference in where we say viability begins. Your definition precludes viability before age 3, I think you said, so asking me how a baby can be viable before birth, when you define it as you do renders the question nonsensical. It violates your tautology.

Using my definition I do not believe any person has the right to impose their well being over the bodily integrity of another. Even to save a life. I can't demand blood from a stranger, they need to offer it freely. We have organ doaners because we recognize bodily integrity even in death. Except some people want to make a special exemption for unborn babies to have a claim on their. I have yet to see that acknoledged or seriously defended.

I find it especially concerning because pregnancy is not a casual use of body, it entails serious, often potentially fatal, health consequences. By comparison blood or plasma donation is a mild requirement but we have no crusaders demanding we all spend more time at blood banks.

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”