The junk science of the abortion lobby

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 31, 2019

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Neuroscience}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Pediatric neurosurgeon Michael Egnor : Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults:

“Much of pro-abortion advocacy is science denial—the deliberate misrepresentation of science to advance an ideological agenda. Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University, wrote a misleading essay on that theme in the New York Times, “Science won’t end this debate” (January 22, 2019).” Michael Egnor, “More.” at Mind Matters

See also: The Governor Of Virginia: Killing Babies Is OK By Me (Barry Arrington)

and

Does brain stimulation research challenge free will? (Michael Egnor)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

RR, thank you for expert input with deep experience behind it. Your description of the evident pain awareness of newborn children and of the child back to the 22nd of 40 weeks speaks to consciousness. This parallels evidence that suggests that the child in the womb is learning through hearing, through things like responsiveness to familiar voices and the old trick of using a wrapped ticking clock to mimic maternal heartbeat and calm a baby. We really need to take off ideological blinkers and pay heed to evidence that the unborn child is clearly a functioning member of our race. That will require that we face our collective, global guilt of being part of the mass slaughter of the unborn over the past 40+ years, currently advancing at about a million more victims per week. The cumulative toll is in excess of 800 millions, making this by far the worst holocaust in history. This alone is more than enough to warrant the concern that our civilisation has gone horribly wrong. I also hold that this is the central cancer, busily sending out deadly metastases across our institutions and culture. KF PS: What are your specific points of concern? Have you looked at the weak argument correctives linked from the resources tab? I note, the core ID contention is [a] it is a legitimate scientific question to explore whether various phenomena of interest provide empirically reliable signs of design as key cause, and [b] that such signs are present in the world of life and that of the structure and fine tuning of the cosmos. I now add [c] that some aspects of the embedding of structure and quantity in the fabric of the world point to mind as best explanation.kairosfocus_{February 12, 2019
February
02
Feb
12
12
2019
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

I am new to UD as a commentator, but have been reading most of the blogs with internet for some time. I claim no expertise in biology, physics, information technology, social sciences, and philosophy, so I don’t always understand everything that is being discussed. However, where I do have expertise is that I have been a pediatric anesthesiologist in an academic institution for 31 years. I work with atheists, agnostics, theists, etc, individuals of varying beliefs. I felt that it was time I wrote something. No one that I work with and none of my patients or their families believe that consciousness is an illusion. My job is to render patients unconscious so that they do not feel pain. In the dark days of pediatric anesthesia, newborn infants were thought not to have pain, so all they received was a drug to prevent them from moving so facilitate surgery. Today that would be considered outright barbaric and malpractice. Even though we do not know if newborns perceive pain the way older infants and children do, we do know that they have a heart rate, blood pressure, behavioural, and stress hormone release response to pain. We do know that this response, if not adequately treated, results in greater morbidity and mortality for infants. This is true even of premature infants. In our institution, premature infants of greater than 22 weeks gestation and 500 gms or heavier are considered potential candidates for saving with aggressive treatment. They receive narcotics for discomfort in the neonatal intensive care. I give them real anesthesia and pain medication when they require surgery (my personal smallest is 600 gms), as much as their frail bodies can tolerate. No competent and informed practitioner in any pediatric medical or surgical specialty denies that infants experience pain. You can draw your own conclusions here about I would feel about late trimester abortions. The other myth is that infants do not remember pain. We do not know if they have a conscious memory of pain like older children and adults. What studies have shown is that if an infant has had a surgical procedure (for example, circumcism) without adequate anesthesia or painful procedures (like frequent needle pokes) without some form of analgesia, they object more vigorously when they receive immunization compared to other infants who have not had these procedures. To suggest that one does not experience pain if one is asleep is completely absurd. If you are naturally asleep and someone does something painful to you, you will wake up. The anesthetic dosage requirements are much greater to tolerate a painful procedure than simply to induce sleep or for a non painful procedure. Awareness under anesthesia, though uncommon, can occur under certain circumstances. Patients with this experience are usually quite emotionally traumatized, especially if they are having a painful procedure. I would challenge those who believe that consciousness is an illusion to have their surgery done without an anesthetic. None of my atheistic surgical colleagues or atheistic patients and their parents feel that I am imposing my views on consciousness on the children I look after. BTW, I am a theist and have a strong interest in the ID movement even though I don’t understand or agree with everything.redridley_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

EG, I await your refutation, starting with E = Error exists, so ~E implies it is an error to assert E; thus E is undeniably true. Persuasion, in short, is not warrant as there is a choice involved. When we can sort out this case and its devastating implications for subjectivism and relativism, we can get back to structure and quantity embedded in the fabric of reality, to degrees of warranted certainty and to the questions of scientific knowledge and (the far more warranted case of) moral knowledge and truth. KFkairosfocus_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

SM, that is -- sadly -- what seems to be going on. Selective hyperskepticism without warrant, substituted for serious discussion on the merits. When we reach a point where the force of the logic on merits tracing to self-evident first principles can be brushed aside freely, that is a very bad sign of where we are. KF PS: And if that happens with things that are much more warranted than science can be, we are seeing that the issue with the design inference is not the inference or its warrant, but the breakdown in how we think.kairosfocus_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

F/N: News has a telling clip from Hossenfelder:
How often can you hold up four fingers, hear a thousand people shout “five”, and not agree with them? How often can you repeat an argument, see it ignored, and still believe in reason? How often can you tell a thousand scientists the blatantly obvious, hear them laugh, and not think you are the one who is insane?
The answer is, the self-evident logic is right and the crowd wrong. KFkairosfocus_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

"but that your opinion and belief do not necessarily constitute warrant" IF that is Hazel's position then Hazel ought to be able to show the flaw(s) in KF's argument that led him to conclude he had warrant. After all, KF has laid his arguments out in plain view, repeatedly, and in very detailed and rigorously structured manner. IF Hazel is unable to do that then Hazel is proposing that Hazel's opinion and belief are sufficient in and of themselves to refute a credible argument. This strikes me as both convenient and implausible.ScuzzaMan_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

EG, warrant is on the table with a very specific test case. Kindly answer it on the merits, without implying that I have made an error . . . which illustrates just how undeniable it is. Likewise, your arguments imply known duties to truth, right reason and much more, while trying to subjectivise same. They are self-referentially incoherent. KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Hazel claims,,,
There is no empirical proof of any of these speculations about what mind is, where it comes from, and what its role is in the overall nature of reality.
Do you really believe that??? It is often pointed out in “the hard problem” of consciousness that the specific mental attribute of qualia will forever be beyond any possible materialistic explanation and/or to any physical examination. That is to say that qualia will never be reducible to physical ‘brain states’.
“what it is like to taste a specific apple, this particular apple now”. Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky.,, – pre wikipedia David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
And whereas qualia will never lend itself to physical examination, on the other hand we find that the mental attributes of ‘free will’ and “the experience of the now”, although being outside space-time, do lend themselves to physical examination.
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4 (December 2018) Neuroscientific and quantum validation of free will https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/three-knockdown-proofs-of-the-immateriality-of-mind-and-why-computers-compute-not-think/#comment-670445
In fact, besides empirical validation for the mental attributes of 'the experience of the now' and of free will, there are numerous other lines of evidence in quantum mechanics that the Theist can appeal to in order support his claim the the Mind of God precedes all of material reality
,,,Thus to summarize, putting all the lines of evidence together from the Double Slit experiment, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, and the Quantum Zeno effect, the argument for God from consciousness can now be formulated like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even a central position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - 5 Experiments - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5qphmi8gYE
Thus in conclusion, and in direct contradiction to what Hazel claimed,
There is no empirical proof of any of these speculations about what mind is, where it comes from, and what its role is in the overall nature of reality.
,,, in direct contradiction to that claim, the Christian Theist has multiple lines of evidence from quantum mechanics backing up his claim that Mind of God is primary and material is derivative, whereas the Atheist has zero evidence that mind is somehow magically emergent from a material basis: Here are a few supplemental quotes:
"Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness." - Jerry Fodor - Rutgers University philosopher [2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7. "Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature." Roger Wolcott Sperry - Nobel neurophysiologist As quoted in Genius Talk : Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (1995) by Denis Brian ISBN 0306450895 "No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians' hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it." - Larry Dossey - Physician and author "We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists who often confuse their religion with their science." - John C. Eccles, The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind - 1984 “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” - Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” - Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334. “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists." – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177. "In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place." - William J. Murray
Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Touch The Sky (lyric video) - Hillsong UNITED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RQciil7B0
bornagain77_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

KF@107, I think that what Hazel is saying is that what you consider to be warrant is your opinion and belief, but that your opinion and belief do not necessarily constitute warrant. In short, you have convinced yourself but you haven’t convinced her and others.Ed George_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

H, if you doubt that warrant can be had towards truth, that is an even bigger problem. KF PS: Consider, Error exists, E. Consider its denial, ~E. The latter in effect asserts it is an error to assert that error exists, undermining itself instantly. E is an undeniable, self evident truth. It is a case of certain truth, warranted beyond rational doubt. It is hard form knowledge. It is also empirically accessible (think about red X's for elementary school sums). This single truth, sweeps away a vast array of worldviews that directly or implicitly deny objective, knowable truth or that we may empirically reliably detect truth.kairosfocus_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

kf writes, "H, pardon but the issue is not my subjective certainty but warrant towards credible truth." I know you believe that.hazel_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

ba writes, "May I point out that you, ‘correctly’, believing that you have a immaterial mind, while it may not make you a Christian, certainly makes you a Theist of some sort. " No, it doesn't, assuming theism implies a personal, conscious, willful, purposeful divine entity. That is certainly not the only alternative to materialism. You write,
If you have proof for any of these these other possibilities, (other than Atheistic physicalism or Theism),,, empirical proof somewhere other than in the shadows of your imagination, please present the empirical proof of these ‘other possibilities’ that you somehow see in your imagination.
There is no empirical proof of any of these speculations about what mind is, where it comes from, and what its role is in the overall nature of reality.hazel_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

H, pardon but the issue is not my subjective certainty but warrant towards credible truth. In the context of alternative worldviews cores, inference to best explanation i/l/o comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. the focal question that attaches to moral government is that given that it governs thought life, on pain of grand delusion, it must be real. Nor can it be merely subjective, that reduces to being a grand delusion. That is, there is a core of moral knowledge which inter alia governs our thought life through duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness etc. That is inescapable, on pain of reducing thought and communication to grand delusion that utterly undermines rational discussion, learning etc. The onward issue is to address the IS-OUGHT gap, noting that the two are inextricably intertwined in our reasoning. This is why I pointed to the root of reality, or else we are looking at ungrounded ought. We therefore need a world root IS, being, capable of causing a world with morally governed creatures, so also of grounding ought. That leads to a comparative difficulties challenge across candidates, and what I have pointed out is that after centuries, there is but one serious candidate. To sustain another, the same difficulties have to be addressed, where for instance IS-OUGHT as a gap is a manifestation of the problem of the ONE AND THE MANY, how do we get to a coherent world given diversity, or else how do we have diversity if we posit a grand ONE. The result of such exercises is as I pointed out, and the comparative difficulties challenge is the reason why I say such so freely. KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Hazel, I appreciate you honestly laying out and/or working out your worldview in post 95. as to
The fact that I might have an opinion that might be held by a materialist doesn’t make me a materialist, any more than agreeing with a Christian position makes me a Christian.
and
* I accept the reality of my mind as something separate from my body, and thus from the material world
May I point out that you, 'correctly', believing that you have a immaterial mind, while it may not make you a Christian, certainly makes you a Theist of some sort. The reality of immaterial mind separate from matter and energy, and that is capable of somehow interacting with matter and energy, is completely antithetical to materialism (and pantheism for that matter). You disfavor dichotomies, but alas, there are, in reality, only two options in the end. There is no "However, I see other possibilities." If you have proof for any of these these other possibilities, (other than Atheistic physicalism or Theism),,, empirical proof somewhere other than in the shadows of your imagination, please present the empirical proof of these 'other possibilities' that you somehow see in your imagination. Might I further suggest that your moral basis, with what I perceive to be your heavy emphasis on compassion and grace, is far more compatible with Christianity, than it is with either Islam or Judaism, than you seem to personally realize right now? As the ancient historian I quoted in the other thread stated, “In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.”
Tom Holland: Why I was wrong about Christianity – 2016 It took me a long time to realise my morals are not Greek or Roman, but thoroughly, and proudly, Christian. Excerpt: Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity?fbclid=IwAR0QqBmBxdpkHh_iiXlJX-UbwShtej-wnB721Z1eULApM6fuxSUzSjnBJA8
bornagain77_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

kf writes, " Pardon, you have mentioned a world root in very general terms, but have not engaged the comparative difficulties challenge" True. First I'm aware that my thoughts are very general because they are almost entirely speculative. Second, I have no interest in engaging in a "comparative difficulties challenge." I know how certain you are about your beliefs, I know how I think your sense of certainty is unjustified, and I know how much I think we can't really know what the world is at the root-level. I accept our differences, but we've gone over a lot of that and there is no sense in repeating it all.hazel_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

H, Pardon, you have mentioned a world root in very general terms, but have not engaged the comparative difficulties challenge. Adequate to cause reality, including morally governed creatures. Minded creatures where as you acknowledged from the outset, mind and matter are distinct but interacting. Thus, you imply immaterial, morally governed reality as mind acts are morally governed. Where moral choice and moral goodness imply mindedness, the heart of personhood. Where in fact the pantheistic view* runs into serious challenges at exactly this point, it can get to one but not adequately to the one and the many, including on moral matters where moral diversity has to be dealt with: good vs evil. _____ * I here reckon Panentheism as a variant form. Note, again, my comment on the candidate to beat:
Or is it, given a known alternative on the table, in the context of being the only serious, successful candidate, that there is implicit refusal to admit that? Let’s summarise: from our thought life on up, we are inescapably morally governed, as witnessed by conscience and known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, neighbourliness etc. Likewise, it is self evidently wrong and wicked to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child for one’s pleasure. These and many other considerations in today’s age force us to ponder whether moral government and knowledge are delusional, artifacts of the evolved brain or some other kind of delusion. But if that is so, our whole inner life would fall under the taint, grand delusion. We are forced to accept that we are morally governed so that the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged at world-root. This requires a being independent of others for its existence and moral framework, being also inherently good and causally adequate to account for a world involving us as morally governed creatures. There being (after many centuries of debate) just one serious candidate. If you doubt, just provide an alternative: _____ and address comparative difficulties: _______ . The candidate to beat: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. That is, ethical theism, being here prior to any particular philosophical or religious tradition or teacher.
Okay, more later, gotta run, KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

Thanks, BA. I am getting something out of writing my posts, or, for the most part, I wouldn't be doing it. Other's posts aimed at me serve as a foil and a stimulus to think about things.hazel_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

kf, I have mentioned a possible "world root": what I have speculatively called a oneness underlying quantum reality, giving rise to both mind and matter. It doesn't meet all your criteria for a world root, but I haven't side-stepped the issue.hazel_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

H: I note your remarks at 95:
I am certain that many of the positions ED, BB, and I have argued for in this thread, and in the Killing Babies thread, are held by many religious people, including Christians, as well as non-religious people of different sorts. The fact that I might have an opinion that might be held by a materialist doesn’t make me a materialist, any more than agreeing with a Christian position makes me a Christian.
You will note how frequently I have spoken to evolutionary materialistic scientism (with its institutional, deleterious dominance) [= "naturalism"] AND fellow travellers. The point, being, that when we face an ideological juggernaut -- never mind its inherent self-falsification through self referential incoherence and the import of its implicit amorality -- it distorts the institutional and policy space, strongly pulling people to "moderate" [= acceptable] positions. And where agit prop stunts, media amplification, media lyinchings and lawfare abound, there will be a tendency to undue dominance of the ideology. So, there will be a pattern where many who have varying views are pulled into orbit. The further factor is that it is plain that the ideological dominance is leading our civilisation on a locked-in voyage of ruinous folly. Blind, ruinous folly. That is background. Let's note on your worldview outline with ethical aspects, clipping and annotating particularly interesting points:
* I accept the reality of my mind as something separate from my body, and thus from the material world * I believe that my mind and my body are very entangled, constantly interacting with each other. * However, I do not know how my mind interfaces with my body, nor the details of how the two interact with and influence each other. I don’t believe anyone know these things. * My philosophical speculation, which is nothing more than that, is that there is some unified oneness beyond the quantum level that gives rise to both mind and matter. [--> a unified root of reality, which also needs to reckon with diversity including moral diversity] * I believe that my mind has rational capabilities, which includes the ability *** to understand abstract concepts, *** to embody those concepts in verbal and written symbols that can be shared with others, and can be used by me to increase my understanding via internal reflection *** to manipulate those symbols logically * I believe that my consciousness is just part of my mind, and that at one one time it is aware of just a small part of what is in my mind * I believe that our mind has the ability to make freely determined choices, *** although that ability is very entangled with our bodily self: learning how to exercise the will is one of the primary tasks of being a human being, I think . . . . My sense that I am obligated to live morally, and that there is a fundamental moral foundation, is just as real to me as my consciousness or my rationality. [--> echoing, that the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged at world-root] It seems to me that that foundation starts with some basic principles about how to treat our fellow human beings: * Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor.” That’s a good place to start. [--> but who is my neighbour and why must s/he be viewed as of equal moral worth?] * Be compassionate to all. My yoga teacher ends each class with a precept from the Eastern religions, “Bow the head to the heart, and surrender the ego to compassion”. [--> a pointer to pantheistic/ panentheistic influences and the new age movement] * All human beings are created equal, and have an inherent human worth. This is a foundational principle of our country * Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule, and the basic social contract Principles such as these are where morality start. [--> nope, we are not at the root of reality, we cannot ground morality, though we have in us a witness, conscience, which even regulates our reasoning] Applying them to everyday situations, from the momentous to the mundane, is where we have to apply our rationality. [--> which is itself inescapably morally governed] Yes we draw on our culture, and as we become educated we draw on the spiritual wisdom of the ages. We also have to draw on our ability to gather facts, think logically about consequences, and ultimately we have to make [--> morally governed] choices, because moral situations often present us with conflicting perspectives. [--> thus we have to weigh relative values and must regulate the weights we apply, hence the Golden Rule] But some fundamental moral principles underlie it all. Now, where do there underlying principles lie, and from whence do they come. I don’t know.
[--> there is on the table a discussion on inference to best, worldview-level explanation, with open invitation to provide an alternative on comparative difficulties; it is asserted that there is but one serious candidate, you have just implicitly conceded that you cannot supply another]
I know that some of you see this uncertainty on my part in a negative light, but I am confident and comfortable with the idea that it is important to know what I know and what I don’t know.
[--> Or is it, given a known alternative on the table, in the context of being the only serious, successful candidate, that there is implicit refusal to admit that? Let's summarise: from our thought life on up, we are inescapably morally governed, as witnessed by conscience and known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, neighbourliness etc. Likewise, it is self evidently wrong and wicked to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child for one's pleasure. These and many other considerations in today's age force us to ponder whether moral government and knowledge are delusional, artifacts of the evolved brain or some other kind of delusion. But if that is so, our whole inner life would fall under the taint, grand delusion. We are forced to accept that we are morally governed so that the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged at world-root. This requires a being independent of others for its existence and moral framework, being also inherently good and causally adequate to account for a world involving us as morally governed creatures. There being (after many centuries of debate) just one serious candidate. If you doubt, just provide an alternative: _____ and address comparative difficulties: _______ . The candidate to beat: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. That is, ethical theism, being here prior to any particular philosophical or religious tradition or teacher.]
But here is my speculation: Whatever source gives rise to my mind (I mentioned an underlying oneness that is the source of both mind and matter) also gives me this fundamental moral foundation in the same way that it gives me the ability to use logic to manipulate concepts.[--> in short, we are made in God's image, reasonable and responsible, though that word is avoided] In this view, all human beings have the same very basic foundation to draw on: one of love, compassion, and care for other human beings as fundamentally all the same in worth.
[--> All men are created equal, are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . . to secure such rights Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed]
These principles are part of my core being, as well as everyone else’s --> conscience as witness and regulator of reason], and once mine, they grow with me as I develop from childhood to adulthood. Some people believe that this moral core is somehow in contact with some external source of morality: for instance, ba thinks it comes from God. [--> you have so far studiously avoided the ethical theism challenge that was repeatedly put on the table] I don’t experience morality that way. [--> denial that conscience holds us accountable to law and duties, bearing witness to something beyond figments of our fever-dreams] I don’t feel my mind is in contact with any larger mind. [--> the issue is not active relationship with God, but the implications of inescapable moral government and the is-ought gap] The moral foundation is in me, and it’s my job to draw on it in the best way I can. One way to look at it (this is an anthropomorphic metaphor) is that once given the moral foundation, the rationality to assess moral situations in the world, and the ability to choose my actions, the giver goes away.[--> a somewhat deistic suggestion] It’s up to me as a human being to make use of these gifts. Note: this moral foundation goes beyond culture. [--> is transcendent] I do not believe, as Barry said in his OP, that ““good” means what the people of a society collectively deem to be good.” [--> rejects cultural relativism, but that then extends to the society of one, subjectivism; we are not adequate in ourselves to ground moral government] I believe in conscientious objection. I believe we have a civic duty to question accepted morals and other norms when our conscience and rationality [--> which is morally regulated] deem that appropriate.
I of course find in this some interesting intersections with my current OP on ethical aspects of logic and first principles of right reason. It is also significant to see how the pivotal challenge, to bridge the IS-OUGHT gap at the only place this is feasible -- on pain of ungrounded ought -- is side-stepped. Namely, the world root. In short, we see yet again how sound the observation is, that after centuries of debates, there is just one serious candidate. One, that is obviously hard to swallow in today's ideological climate. Okay, as this is implicitly responsive to the parallel OP, I will cross post there. KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

F/N: I find the Harvard article interesting in its lead examples:
In June 2018, Serena Williams told Vanity Fair about her journey to motherhood, including the story of how she nearly died a few days after giving birth. In September, Beyoncé punctuated her Vogue cover with the story of how she developed a life-threatening pregnancy condition called preeclampsia, which can lead to seizures and stroke.
Both of these are wealthy, celebrity women; one a very robustly framed internationally prominent athlete. And while they may well simply be lending profile to a cause of concern, it is instantly obvious that such women will have the best of the best health care. In the case of the first, she will also unquestionably be in the top 1% of general health for the population. Indeed, there is no economically feasible socialised medicine system that would deliver to the median or 75th percentile woman, the level of care these would access. (And, we must also remember that a high innovation relatively free market strongly tends to move price points down so that across time what was once skimming the cream becomes much less costly and far more widely available at acceptable quality. Where, too, medical techniques pioneered in the military and based on the level of practice due to dealing with casualties will also feed into the general system. Where, inherently, Economics is about scarcity and choice thus rationing mechanism. Thus, there is never going to be a free lunch and the simple fact of large governmental overheads causes a trend to reduced growth, innovation and investment so that beyond a certain point even tax revenues fall with increasing rates. Long before that, growth is crippled. So, we need a long-run optimisation, very difficult in a culture that sharply discounts the future.) So, what is going on beneath the celebrity tip of the iceberg? The article offers an analysis that is suggestive by what it says and even moreso by what it does not say:
In 1990, about 17 maternal deaths were recorded for every 100,000 pregnant women in the United States. [--> Wiki citing WHO lists as current: 14 for the US, also for Puerto Rico, with the lowest being 3 (a 4-way tie) and about 3 dozen states ranging 4 - 11] While relatively rare, this number has risen steadily over the last 25 years, indicating a worsening safety problem. In 2015, more than 26 deaths were recorded per 100,000 pregnant women. This means that compared with their own mothers, American women today are 50% more likely to die in childbirth. And the risk is consistently three to four times higher for black women than white women, irrespective of income or education . . . . four out of five of these deaths happen in the weeks and months before or after birth. So, they occur not in the hospital, but in our communities. And they represent many failures — not just unsafe medical care, but also eroding social support necessary for women to recognize medical warning signs, like abnormal bleeding or hopelessness about the future, and to seek timely care . . . . During long gaps between checkups, mothers experience deep worry for their infants. They struggle with rapidly accelerated responsibilities, extreme sleep deprivation, and relentless pressure to return to work. And all while recovering from pregnancy and adjusting to parenthood — a transition that marks one of life’s greatest physiological endurance tests. Too often, this experience is isolating, disempowering, and mortally dangerous. And over time, these risks are getting increasingly severe . . . . In some cases, moms can do more to take care of themselves, including by eating well and exercising to stay healthy. The challenge, of course, is that most new moms are exhausted because motherhood is exhausting. And in general, society expects moms to put themselves last in order to put their families first. So, I would say a major responsibility to address the well-being of mothers actually lies with the rest of us. If rising maternal mortality is fundamentally a failure of social support, we all need to step up: birth partners, grandparents, friends, neighbors, professional colleagues — all of us.
This strongly points to family breakdown (especially on the extended side) leading to isolation and overloading of the individual, and it only hints at dangerous lifestyle trends and habits. These trends are directly tied to the sort of accelerated family and societal disintegration that has occurred across the last generation or two. That is then amplified by the contrast of a vast technological improvement in the health sector, obviously rising capabilities linked thereto, and the reported oppositely directed trend of maternal mortality. Where also, we must reckon with another suspect: prior abortions as a part of the pattern. In this generation, women are far more likely to have had a prior abortion than those of forty to seventy years ago, where it is also known that a disproportionate fraction of african american women have had abortions. Where such abortions patently will add to underlying stress due to what being involved in the death of one's own living posterity in one's own womb must imply, even at subconscious level. The further factor of all sorts of drugs, legal and illegal, over the counter, prescription and otherwise multiplied by a food industry with all sorts of additives and traces should not be neglected. The obvious lag of European cultures on social disintegration is then another relevant consideration. In short, we need to be cautious in assigning or assuming causal factors in a politically correct era where the infamous spiral of silence is known to be at work, leading to self-censorship in defence of one's career. This implies that statistics will often be twisted away from the material truth, sometimes through deliberate advocacy, sometimes through blindness imposed by prevailing paradigms, sometimes in anticipatory self-defence. Thus, statistics can become a dangerous source of half-truths, in a context where once the complexities of markets and the far deeper ones of societal interactions and personal psychology and lifestyle are involved there is no effective means of centralised, responsive planning. That is a hard lesson from the exercises in governmental domination of societies and their economies over the past several generations. We must be aware that statistics without adequate dynamical models can be misleading, Also, that seemingly empirically reliable scientific theories are at best provisional. Where also, we must remember that there is a longstanding peer review and replicability crisis on published research. One, with particular relevance to medicine and to social and psychological research. So, yes, statistical monitoring is relevant, and willingness to act at appropriate community level. So is willingness to face the signs of long term social disintegration and its entropic consequences. The issue is not simplistic. But it does suggest, on strongly, plausibly connected macro-trends, that societal breakdown is having seriously damaging consequences. KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2019
February
02
Feb
5
05
2019
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT}

Hazel@95, excellent post. I have been amused by Barry’s interactions with you and Ed over on the killing babies thread. In that thread BA appears to be more interested in attempting to belittle and ridicule than he is to have a constructive conversation. I don’t know why Ed continues to try. Maybe he is just more forgiving than I am.Brother Brian_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

On the Was Killing Babies Good thread, BB wrote at 25,
Is she not entitled to discuss the subjects she is interested in without being forced to get into a theological cat fight?
I appreciated this comment. I worked in a school in a fairly conservative community for many years. Most of the staff were Christians, some were Jewish, some were atheists, some were Unitarians, and many were I know-not-what. We worked together for the good of kids and their education: our theological or philosophical beliefs were irrelevant. What was important was what we believed, not why we believed it. But here, it seems, “worldviews” is the key issue overriding all other issues. For instance, Barry starts the Killing Babies thread with, “I have a question for our materialist interlocutors.” Neither Ed nor I are materialists, but Barry says of Ed,
You toe the materialist time every single time. If you are not a materialist, you will do until one gets here. And I will treat you as such.
And ba says of me,
Hazel, although she often claims she is not an atheist, has consistently argued for atheistic positions.
And Barry says of me,
You don’t participate in threads where the horrifying consequences of your worldview are exposed for all to see.
I am certain that many of the positions ED, BB, and I have argued for in this thread, and in the Killing Babies thread, are held by many religious people, including Christians, as well as non-religious people of different sorts. The fact that I might have an opinion that might be held by a materialist doesn’t make me a materialist, any more than agreeing with a Christian position makes me a Christian. But with all that said, let me repeat some things about my “worldview”, and then address morality specifically. I’ve done this before, and it hasn’t done much good, but I’ll try again, in abbreviated form. * I accept the reality of my mind as something separate from my body, and thus from the material world * I believe that my mind and my body are very entangled, constantly interacting with each other. * However, I do not know how my mind interfaces with my body, nor the details of how the two interact with and influence each other. I don’t believe anyone know these things. * My philosophical speculation, which is nothing more than that, is that there is some unified oneness beyond the quantum level that gives rise to both mind and matter. * I believe that my mind has rational capabilities, which includes the ability *** to understand abstract concepts, *** to embody those concepts in verbal and written symbols that can be shared with others, and can be used by me to increase my understanding via internal reflection *** to manipulate those symbols logically * I believe that my consciousness is just part of my mind, and that at one one time it is aware of just a small part of what is in my mind * I believe that our mind has the ability to make freely determined choices, *** although that ability is very entangled with our bodily self: learning how to exercise the will is one of the primary tasks of being a human being, I think. As for morals, here’s what I said on the Killing Babies thread.
It seems to me, in part from my own internal experience and in part from my empirical knowledge of people and societies, that people draw on an inward source of moral judgment in addition to the cultural views which embody the moral judgments of their society.
The “inward” part was interpreted by ba thusly:
It tells us that she is basically drawing upon her own moral intuition, and apparently compromising her own moral intuition, when need be, to conform to the society around her, and is not looking to God so as to form the basis of her moral judgments. … That Hazel does not look directly to God as the basis of her morality but looks to her own moral intuition, as well as the morality of the society around her to form the basis of her morality, is a very slippery slope for her to base her moral foundation upon.
Note: I said an “inward source”, not “my own moral intuition”. No, I am not a Christian, but I am not a materialist either. However, ba sees things as a strict dichotomy:
Unlike man’s morality, which is fallible, and which is often subject to whatever the prevailing, i.e. ‘progressive’, cultural whims of the day are, God’s morality is absolutely perfect and certainly never subject to change according to prevailing cultural whims.
However, I see other possibilities. Also, in Barry’s OP in the Killing Babies thread, he wrote,
I have a question for our materialist interlocutors. You say that morality is a social construct; which means that “good” means what the people of a society collectively deem to be good. If that is so, was it an affirmatively good thing when an ancient pagan killed a baby girl because she was a baby girl instead of a baby boy?
Well, I am not one of the “materialist interlocutors” and I’ve never said that “morality is a social construct; which means that “good” means what the people of a society collectively deem to be good.” Yes, societies build moral systems (and broader normative systems about non-moral behaviour) that provide a structure for people to learn and abide by. Societies couldn’t exist without them, and children couldn’t grow up without such structures to learn. But as I agreed with kf recently, people also have the ability to question their society’s norms, and to apply their conscience to making judgments that reject society’s morals. Otherwise, among things, moral reform would not be possible. So let me say more about an “inward source of moral judgment”. My sense that I am obligated to live morally, and that there is a fundamental moral foundation, is just as real to me as my consciousness or my rationality. It seems to me that that foundation starts with some basic principles about how to treat our fellow human beings: * Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor.” That’s a good place to start. * Be compassionate to all. My yoga teacher ends each class with a precept from the Eastern religions, “Bow the head to the heart, and surrender the ego to compassion”. * All human beings are created equal, and have an inherent human worth. This is a foundational principle of our country * Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule, and the basic social contract Principles such as these are where morality start. Applying them to everyday situations, from the momentous to the mundane, is where we have to apply our rationality. Yes we draw on our culture, and as we become educated we draw on the spiritual wisdom of the ages. We also have to draw on our ability to gather facts, think logically about consequences, and ultimately we have to make choices, because moral situations often present us with conflicting perspectives. But some fundamental moral principles underlie it all. Now, where do there underlying principles lie, and from whence do they come. I don’t know. I know that some of you see this uncertainty on my part in a negative light, but I am confident and comfortable with the idea that it is important to know what I know and what I don’t know. But here is my speculation: Whatever source gives rise to my mind (I mentioned an underlying oneness that is the source of both mind and matter) also gives me this fundamental moral foundation in the same way that it gives me the ability to use logic to manipulate concepts. In this view, all human beings have the same very basic foundation to draw on: one of love, compassion, and care for other human beings as fundamentally all the same in worth. These principles are part of my core being, as well as everyone else’s, and once mine, they grow with me as I develop from childhood to adulthood. Some people believe that this moral core is somehow in contact with some external source of morality: for instance, ba thinks it comes from God. I don’t experience morality that way. I don’t feel my mind is in contact with any larger mind. The moral foundation is in me, and it’s my job to draw on it in the best way I can. One way to look at it (this is an anthropomorphic metaphor) is that once given the moral foundation, the rationality to assess moral situations in the world, and the ability to choose my actions, the giver goes away. It’s up to me as a human being to make use of these gifts. Note: this moral foundation goes beyond culture. I do not believe, as Barry said in his OP, that ““good” means what the people of a society collectively deem to be good.” I believe in conscientious objection. I believe we have a civic duty to question accepted morals and other norms when our conscience and rationality deem that appropriate. That’s enough. I have an airplane to catch early in the morning to go to help my 92 year old father with coping with the realization that he and his wife need to give up living independently and move into an assisted living facility. One last story. My adult daughter is very involved in her profession, and some legal issues at the state level have come up. Because she is skilled with that kind of thing, even though she has three young children and is very busy with her business, she has undertaken the work for her professional organization. I emailed her and said that I was sorry that she had to take on more work, but I knew she was the best person for the job. I ended my email to her with “Moral obligation is such a bummer! :)” She replied, “LOL, and thanks. I feel so so understood.”hazel_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

It would be interesting to see those statistics broken down into at least three different categories- before, during birth and after. And yes, health care in the USA needs a major reformation.ET_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

ET@92, nobody is suggesting that this is not a complex issue, but it is interesting to look at the countries that have lower maternal mortality rates than we do. They share many of the socio-economic and poverty problems as we do, many experiencing serious immigration challenges. But the obvious difference is that the majority of them have some form of single payer health care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_maternal_mortality_rateEd George_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

A soaring maternal mortality rate: What does it mean for you?:
Are the statistics misleading? The root cause of these startling statistics is often misunderstood. The public image of maternal death is a woman who has a medical emergency like a hemorrhage while in labor. However, very few deaths counted in maternal mortality statistics occur during childbirth. Rather, four out of five of these deaths happen in the weeks and months before or after birth. So, they occur not in the hospital, but in our communities. And they represent many failures — not just unsafe medical care, but also eroding social support necessary for women to recognize medical warning signs, like abnormal bleeding or hopelessness about the future, and to seek timely care.
ET_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

I agree, Ed. Every woman should have adequate healthcare for pregnancy and childbirth, as well as contraceptives so that pregnancy and childbirth can be in her, and her partner's control. Furthermore, to pile on, widespread early childhood education would be good also.hazel_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Hazel@89, further support for single payer health care. I did a quick wiki search. It is interesting that our maternal mortality rates are double those of our northern neighbor, the country often used by those opposed to a single payer system as an example of a health care disaster.Ed George_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

I just googled, as I forget where I got the stats I posted, but here are two links to articles: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world and https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-shocking-number-of-us-women-still-die-from-childbirth-california-is-doing-something-about-that/2018/11/02/11042036-d7af-11e8-a10f-b51546b10756_story.html?utm_term=.24796066db60 From the second article,
Experts in maternal health blame the high U.S. rate on poverty, untreated chronic conditions and a lack of access to health care, especially in rural areas where hospitals and maternity units have closed in the past few years.
hazel_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Hazel@84, being a pending grandfather, those statistics are terrifying. Did they suggest any possible causes of the increased mortality rates?Ed George_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

LoL! @ hazel- LIVING is a health riskET_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply