Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting

[David Sklansky]

Dogfighting is worse than meat eating because dogfighters have the dog,s suffering and death as their final goal. Meat eaters just want pleasure and nutrition and in no way actually want animals to die. Reasonable argument.

But when people try to use the same argument when distinguishing between using stem cells to help the world, and killing innocent Iraqi children to help the world, they are on thin ice.

Those who oppose stem cell research but not bombing Iraqi houses (that are known to contain both innocents and "high value targets") make a much finer distinction. They don't claim that the the stem cell researchers have as their goal the death of the embryos. They only claim that the process "requires" that death. Whereas the house boming doesn't actually require that innocent death.

To me that distinction is nowhere near important enough to allow you to be in favor of random bombing while opposed to stem cell research. And to make this point clearer I propose the follwing hypothetical scenario:

Osama Bin Laden is in a house with six of his children. Any bombing will apparently definitely kill them all. But the president approves the raid for the good of the world and the fact that the deaths of the children are collateral damage but not required for the mission. As the plane approaches, the president is apprised of a curious fact. The setup of the house is such that Osama is in a spot that will allow him to escape death. If he was alone. But because the children are there he won't escape death. It doesn't matter why. Perhaps the less protected children will die and fall on him.

When the president hears this, will he halt the mission? I think it is incredibly unlikely. He will reason that nothing has changed from the original plan which is to kill Osama and unfortunately six of his children. The fact that he has been told that the children's deaths are now "required" will have little impact on him. Nor should it.

Of course none of this matters to those who don't equate embryos with human beings. But it does matter to pro lifers. And I believe that many of these pro lifers instinctively understand my point even if they haven't specifically thought it through. Which is why they support stem cell research even as they oppose abortion. Those pro lifers who feel differently are being unacceptably inconsistent as long as they admit the value of the stem cell research they oppose, but still support that house getting bombed.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Those pro lifers who feel differently are being unacceptably inconsistent as long as they admit the value of the stem cell research they oppose, but still support that house getting bombed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides the obvious, does the fact that one is dealing with a current but temporary threat with deterrent value to humans and the other deals with an ongoing 'threat' that won't be resolved immediately, may not be the only solution indicate that thoughts about 'inconsistency' don't apply? For starters.
( The osama case has political impact whether a success or not, whether deterrent or rousing may be argued).

luckyme

[BluffTHIS!]

ABC

A: the moral actor who acts against another moral entity for its (A's) benefit

B: the moral actor/entity who is acted against to its detriment

C: uninvolved 3rd moral actors/entities who are harmed (collateral damage) or benefited (collateral benefit) by A's actions versus B


The first test of A's actions is: does A have a right to so act, or at least a right that outweighs the rights of B. Self defense is clearly such a right and *might* make bombing OBL w/collateral damage acceptable in *some* situations. But A has NO right to act against B merely for its benefit when B is not posing a threat to A's life (killing someone for their liver e.g.). If A's actions can't pass this test, then NOTHING else matters, including how C is affected negatively OR positively.

The next test if A does have a right to act in self defense, is proportionality. And here it comes into play whether certain collateral damage to C is unforseen or postively forseen, and the scale of that damage. But proportional is of course different when A is only one life at risk, or is a nation whose existence is at risk. Thus this is not an absolute scale and the mere size of possible damage to C cannot itself be used to say that A's actions are wrong, but only when such a size is not proportional. So the size of the possible harm to A by not acting is the determining factor in how much harm can be visited upon C (or B).

The thing to note here, is that how C is affected does not matter except where A does have a right to act, and also has to consider how C is affected. If A has no right to act, then it cannot matter that C is benefited in some way. And furthermore, as discussed in threads in the past, one cannot argue that some gain can licitly be derived from A's action for the benefit of C so that the action "doesn't go to waste", because allowing that can only set up future bad acts.

[ZeeJustin]

BT, let me know if I'm understanding you correctly. I hope that I am not.

If A is a random German self proclaimed moralist, B is Hitler circa 1940, and C is the Jewish population of western Europe, you are saying that A has no right to kill B regardless of the gain for C? It is not in self defense, but it is in the defense of others.

Maybe you consider the defense of others ok under whatever rights you arbitrarily think are sufficient, because B has intent to kill.

What if instead of B being Hitler, we have some crazy scientist who is about to accidentally stumble upon an engineered disease that will inevitably wipe out all the Jews (after a year of stomach-cancer like suffering)? Are you saying his assassination is unacceptable?

[BluffTHIS!]

Self defense can obviously include the defense of 3rd parties *when B is the aggressor*.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
ABC

A: the moral actor who acts against another moral entity for its (A's) benefit

B: the moral actor/entity who is acted against to its detriment

C: uninvolved 3rd moral actors/entities who are harmed (collateral damage) or benefited (collateral benefit) by A's actions versus B


The first test of A's actions is: does A have a right to so act, or at least a right that outweighs the rights of B. Self defense is clearly such a right and *might* make bombing OBL w/collateral damage acceptable in *some* situations. But A has NO right to act against B merely for its benefit when B is not posing a threat to A's life (killing someone for their liver e.g.). If A's actions can't pass this test, then NOTHING else matters, including how C is affected negatively OR positively.

The next test if A does have a right to act in self defense, is proportionality. And here it comes into play whether certain collateral damage to C is unforseen or postively forseen, and the scale of that damage. But proportional is of course different when A is only one life at risk, or is a nation whose existence is at risk. Thus this is not an absolute scale and the mere size of possible damage to C cannot itself be used to say that A's actions are wrong, but only when such a size is not proportional. So the size of the possible harm to A by not acting is the determining factor in how much harm can be visited upon C (or B).

The thing to note here, is that how C is affected does not matter except where A does have a right to act, and also has to consider how C is affected. If A has no right to act, then it cannot matter that C is benefited in some way. And furthermore, as discussed in threads in the past, one cannot argue that some gain can licitly be derived from A's action for the benefit of C so that the action "doesn't go to waste", because allowing that can only set up future bad acts.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bluff this!

Does a first or second or third trimester embryo facing an immanent abortion qualify as B: the moral actor/entity who is acted against to its detriment? If so, how does an embryo qualify as a “moral actor?” What is a moral actor? If not, then is it ok to have an abortion if it will benefit A’s life?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Self defense can obviously include the defense of 3rd parties *when B is the aggressor*.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought. So the crazy scientist that is gonna accidentally release his disease on the jews is untouchable by your standards? Good-bye jews? Or does unintentional aggression count as well?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he has been told that the children's deaths are now "required" will have little impact on him. Nor should it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree, it should have a big impact or at least its not the case that it shouldn't.

chez

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who oppose stem cell research but not bombing Iraqi houses (that are known to contain both innocents and "high value targets") make a much finer distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those who oppose stem cell research based upon delusional mysticism are so far gone mentally they likely won't be able to comprehend your chain of reasoning. If they could comprehend it, they wouldn't oppose stem cell research in the first place.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Self defense can obviously include the defense of 3rd parties *when B is the aggressor*.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought. So the crazy scientist that is gonna accidentally release his disease on the jews is untouchable by your standards? Good-bye jews? Or does unintentional aggression count as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is proper to use force, even deadly force if absolutely required, to stop someone from committing negligent manslaughter.