And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[KitemanSA]

For the intents and purposes of your differentiation they are. Sapience is the ability to exercise judgement. Non sapience is your threshold for killing.

Nope. At least not precisely. Smart humans are not "more sapient" than stupid ones. Sapience is more like a phase change rather than a temperature. My suspicion is that it happens when the brain splits into two and one can be aware of ones own awareness. When that happens is probably definable, but until it is I would tend to err on the "sooner rather than later" side.

But for the sake of argument, what is your methodology for deciding that one microsecond a zygote is not sapient, and the next microsecond it is?

Don't have one, see above.

Show me that sharp boundary between the one condition and the other so that we may clearly define it by law.

IBID.

[Skipjack]

Well, some food for thought: Babies usually dont recognize themselves in the mirror until they are about 6 months old.

[KitemanSA]

Well, some food for thought: Babies usually dont recognize themselves in the mirror until they are about 6 months old.

Yup. Suggests it takes a while to integrate the internal and external worlds.

Do dogs, cats, canaries, (whatever) EVER recognize themselves in a mirror?

[tomclarke]

Would you argue that the intervention which changes the cells is different qualitatively from the intervention (the environment in a mother's womb) which allows a zygote to multiply? If so how?

It is not different as to the result, but it is certainly different in the manner as to the beginning. For one thing, in order for you to do such a thing, you must start with a cell that was created in the normal manner. (Fusion between two cells from members of the opposite sex.)

The fundamentalist "zygotes are people" argument is really not easy to support, because of course zygotes are not people.

Fine, then you can show us the point of quantum transformation where they cease being the one thing and start being the other. At what point does this occur?

I thought I made it clear that I have some sympathy with the zygotes are people view if you need a binary distinction between human/not human.

I don't, because however you slice it you gte stupidities. I reckon you can get 50% people, 10% people, etc, with progresive reduction in "rights". Not that I have much sympathy with rights.

Further, if zygotes are people then coil contraception is murder.

It is the intentional killing of a unique human DNA shortly after it's creation.

Right. And is that like klling a human? I can create unique human DNA in a testtube pretty easily, or on a computer by combining two sequenced patterns. It is random, and easy to do.

As our knowledge of molecular biology increases we will in the end be able to create artificially all the mechanics of a human cell. In which case this + DNA means artificailly created zygotes. Do these collections of proteins and amino acids suddenly become people? If so at which stage in their creation do they assume personhood and human rights?

Exactly the question I am trying to get you to answer! As I see an unbroken continuum subsequent their creation, it is contingent upon you to define some characteristic between Fusion and Death as the appropriate boundary for legal protection.

So. Just as there is no hard and fast boundary, so legal protection need not be binary. We protect legally against certain types of animal killing, but with much lower penalties than for human killing. In UK, where laws on this subject are still rational, illegal abortion is a bad crime, but not as bad as murder.

I'm agreeing with you about the impossibility if a precise boundary, disagreeing about the necessity.

And I'm consistent in this, since you still require a precise boundary. You have chosen one that is logically less problematic, until molecular biology advances, but conceptually silly. I don't believe you think killing an undifferentiated zygote, with a contraceptive coil, is as bad as murder.

This reductio ad absurdum shows that absolute people/not people divide will in the end never be consistent. So we are left with according "human rights" to other entities in some (not easily defined) graduated way.

Oh, it's easy to define. Some people simply don't like the obvious and scientific answer, preferring instead to base their opinions on what is convenient and self indulgent to their existing predisposition.

This is the basic difference between us. I agree it is "obvious and scientific" but not that it is any proper basis for morality or legality. The only argument for it is if you insist on an unrealistic human/hot human classification.

Morally the argument against it is that you are distinguishing between how life is created. By your definition, a human born from "extreme artificial insemination" where the zygote itself was created artificually, even though functionally identical to a normal zygote, would be non-human and presumably could be raised for spare parts etc.

You will realise the problem this creates.

Personally I don't see that a non-sentient lump of 16 identical cells that could in a womb develop into a human is much more worth rights than an ovum which could given a sperm and womb also so develop.

One would think someone as intelligent as yourself could understand the obvious difference. Ovum and sperm in proximity to each other represent the early stage of probability as shown by this graph. It is only when they have fused that the probability spikes to infinity.





It is not just a function of mechanics, (biochemistry) but of probability as well.

Is that so? No zygote has a 100% chance of developing fully. 25% of zygotes spontaneously abort, so you have natural 25% death rate. No doubt this can be moved a few points up or down by dietary supplements etc. From sperm & egg close together you have maybe 50% chance of full development.

Where is the hard moral dividing line?

You realise that I don't see the morality as relating to how humans are created, only to what they are, and what they can be. I would accord artificially created human life the same rights as 'natural' human life.

In fact the distinction between artificial and natural causation is another dubious topic - since humans are themselves part of the universe.

[tomclarke]

"What they are and what they can be".

Before somone leaps onto the inconsistency, killing babies or children is the greatest crime. But logically, you would think that killing fully developed adults is a greater crime.

Otherwise, if you include potential, then how can killing a zygote be different from killing an adult?

I think my morality includes not just rational calculation of this but the way we all feel. We feel that young innocent children must be protected above all else. Perhaps, evolutionarily, because otherwise killing helpless offspring would be just too easy. And it would not be good for our species, because pregnancy is so costly. (Compare with rabbits, where fathers will sometimes kill young, but young are very cheap).

So when a child is born would be my starting point for murder. Before that point there is a balance of rights between mother and foetus that changes with the development of the foetus. In evolutionary terms the value would relate to the cost of the pregnancy so far. That is not so far away from the way many people feel.

Best wishes, Tom

[Skipjack]

Here in Austria, we have a limit for how long an abortion is legal:
3 months
After that it can ony be performed if there is a medical necessity (e.g. the mothers life is in danger) and then only of the mother agrees.
Personally, I think that this regulation is pretty good and I am not in favor of abortions. If my not yet born doughter ever had an abortion, she would hear it from me. Would I want her to go to prison for that though? Of course not! There are certain situations where I would favor an abortion though. E.g. in case of a rape. I would not want my wife or doughter to have to give birth to the bastard of a rapist.
In that case I woul from my moral POV even find an abortion after 3 months excusable.

[tomclarke]

Here in Austria, we have a limit for how long an abortion is legal:
3 months
After that it can ony be performed if there is a medical necessity (e.g. the mothers life is in danger) and then only of the mother agrees.
Personally, I think that this regulation is pretty good and I am not in favor of abortions. If my not yet born doughter ever had an abortion, she would hear it from me. Would I want her to go to prison for that though? Of course not! There are certain situations where I would favor an abortion though. E.g. in case of a rape. I would not want my wife or doughter to have to give birth to the bastard of a rapist.
In that case I woul from my moral POV even find an abortion after 3 months excusable.

It is roughly like that here, and I agree the law id about where it should be. The whole thing is difficult and complex, and when abortions happen it is a matter of least harm, nothing is good. Even a very early abortin is a very difficult thing (usually) for the mother.

[Betruger]

Well, some food for thought: Babies usually dont recognize themselves in the mirror until they are about 6 months old.

Yup. Suggests it takes a while to integrate the internal and external worlds.

Do dogs, cats, canaries, (whatever) EVER recognize themselves in a mirror?

IIRC it's not such a matter of external/internal, but the patterns of faces "not clicking" yet.

[Diogenes]

In this country, support for the right to keep and bear arms is on the upswing. Guns are the great equalizer between peoples of disparate physical strength and ability. They are the means by which the weak may prevent the strong from imposing their will. They are the means by which the peace is kept.

I had not thought of this one. I don't think it is equalisation, so much as a personal version of MAD. The stakes are raised to a level at which it is hoped fewer people will participate.

A personal version of MAD is a very good way to look at it. If a large man thinks he has an advantage over a smaller man, then he might try to force his will on the smaller man, but with the certain knowledge that the smaller man can "take him", the larger man is deterred.

This concept is expressed neatly in a bumper sticker of which I am fond.

"God made man... Smith and Wesson made them equal!"

Now I'm still not sure this is true. For example, in the UK husbands generally do not beat wives up, even though they usually have the physical capacity to do so, and there are no guns. Sometimes they do, and if the wives complain they can be stopped, but alas many people do not complain.

The difficulty here is trying to separate a component from the vector sum. There is more than one factor at work in this instance. The man prefers the woman's cooperation because she can make him happy when she wants to. (Carrot.) She can also call the authorities if he becomes too abusive. (Stick.) Close interpersonal relationships are normally governed by factors other than fear. (Not always, but those are dysfunctional.)

Relationships between people who are perceived as competitors or adversaries are stabilized by the knowledge of a real possibility of retaliation.

If your idea is true then in the US then minor personal physical violence will be lower than the UK, which sort of balances out the fact that violent death rates (due to gun crime) are much higher.

I would suggest that it is difficult to make comparisons between the UK and the US. The demographics are quite different. I believe it was Charles Murray ("The Bell Curve") who pointed out that if you remove incidents of minority crime from US statistics, the US has lower rates of criminality than does most of Europe. Europe has been largely homogenous for a long time. (A condition which is dramatically changing due to the influx of immigrants.) If my understanding is correct, we have about 13% of the population responsible for 40% of the crime and violence.

Do you think that oppressive spouses are inhibited from being abusive by the existence of guns? What if the oppressor is a much quicker and better shot than the appressed. Given that men more often physically oppress women then vice versa, I would guess this might be true?

There are circumstances during which this may hold true, but even the quickest and most accurate shooter must sleep sometime, and if he's looking over his shoulder for revenge minded people, he might lose that edge from lack of sleep.

The knowledge that someone can catch a "bad @ss" unawares or by ambush is also a deterrent.

I'm still trying to work this one out. Is there any science to back this idea?

There are lots of studies. I've even seen a study by Liberal College professors who sought to prove that the presence of guns increase crime/violence, and were shocked to discover according to their own analysis that the opposite was true. It has been years since I looked at any of these analysis because it has been years since I felt the need to argue the points. As a result, I no longer have a ready list of references to give you.

I can assure you of this, I was very active in the effort to legalize the carrying of guns by citizens in my state, and at the time we provided state legislators with studies and statistics showing that crime was indeed lowered by such legislation. I recall using Florida and I think Georgia as examples, but it has been many years. (1995)

Here is an essay. Well argued I thought.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunownership.htm

It does not quite answer your point about fairness. Suppose that without guns the strong can kill the weak, although this happens rarely.

Yes, it does happen rarely, because the weak, realizing they are weak, submit to the strong and thereby avoid the pain they would suffer if they objected. This overlooks the fact that the weak would prefer to do as they wish rather than be compelled to obey their ostensible masters engaging in a subjugation of their freedom. The presence of guns allows protection of freedom on a larger scale as well.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a FREE state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

With guns, you might argue, deaths are overall easier but this is a good thing because it is fairer?

I think you are going off on a tangent with this focus on "fairer". The only thing that is made "fair" is the ability of the physically weaker to oppose the will of the physically stronger, and thereby prevent coercion.

In Roman times, the symbol of a freed man was a sword, because weapons were forbidden to slaves. Why? Because they didn't want them fighting back when they were told to do something they did not want to do.

I would also point out that After Edward III decreed that Englishmen would be required to own bows and arrows and practice with them at leisure times, the Character of the Englishman evolved very differently from that of the Frenchman where ownership of weapons was prohibited.

Englishmen developed a much greater sense of freedom and independence than did the French where French lords treated their peasantry with great contempt. (Eventually to be paid back during the French Revolution) I would suggest that any tendency by English Lords towards arrogance or abuse might have been tempered by the knowledge that their peasantry was armed with death dealing weapons.

I would not agree. In any case we have replaced physically strong by able to use handguns efficiently. Both capabilities improve with practice.

Where I would agree is that in a country where the norm is to go out killing your neighbours, handguns have the possibly desirable effect of equalising things between different physical types. Against the undesirable effect that they make it much easier for anyone to be killed.

There are second order effects at work. It is those effects that creates the negative feedback system which results in a peaceful stability.

You got it right the first time. Guns create a personal version of MAD, which seemingly worked even on the nuclear scale. The common factor is human nature and how it responds to circumstance. (but as I have previously pointed out this methodology will not work against lunatics or fanatics, such as the current rulers of Iran.)

[Diogenes]

Viciousness is as good as inevitable. A growing pain. But whether or not you (general you) agree with such a definition, the statistical history is pretty hard to ignore. IOW if you want to do more than peacefully get killed, para bellum.

Amen.

Sufficient preparations act as a deterrent, thereby preventing conflict. The most successful way to insure peace is to make it clear to potential opponents that peace is better than the alternative.

This argument contains a logical flaw. it assumes most violence is rational. If on the other hand most violence is irrational, done by people who momentarily (or perhaps psychopathically) have lost control, a cold consideration of likely outcomes will not act as a deterrant, whereas making extreme violence easier will increase the incidence of violence.

So it is down to careful analysis of data.

I would suggest that the exception does not disprove the rule. I believe MOST violence, or more importantly most POTENTIAL violence is indeed rational.

Nobody attacks a grizzly bear, nor matter how angry they might get. Why? Because they know absolutely that they will get ripped to shreds.

The Fear/Flight response is part of human firmware. It is rare for someone to initiate violence against someone who they are certain will hurt them badly.

Even animals know this. Creatures that attack stronger creatures are generally suffering from some sort of diseases such as rabies, in which case the violence is actually irrational.

What you may regard as "irrational" violence is nothing of the sort. That person initiating what to you seems irrational has already weighed the probability of success prior to initiating the violent act, and has deemed the risk worth the effort.


Even in the case of someone run amuck, Such as the Virginia Tech shooter, he did not irrationally chose to attack people with his bare hands, he rationally chose to bring a gun because he knew that gave him an advantage over the people he sought to kill. Had he been certain he would meet people as well armed as himself, he would have either deferred or brought better equipment.

Even with better equipment, had he been facing an armed populace, his effort would have been short lived. (Literally.)

[williatw]

Ghandi did pretty well in India.

I think this argument is a bit theoretical. Are you saying that if every Libyan had a handgun Ghaddaffi would not have been able to rule? I doubt that. Handguns don't work against tanks.

In the UK anyone in the police who wanted to kill citizens (even criminals) would be quickly removed. The only allowance is where it is genuinely thought killing is the only way to prevent immediate harm to self or others others.

Ghandi did well against the British...doubt if he would have done as well against Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. They would have had no compunction against arresting torturing and executing him before he became famous. I believe at one point Ghandi was asked if he thought it would have worked against Hitler, his answer as I recall was something to the effect well eventually but only after many more lives lost. I also believe that Ghandi said: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. In the case of Libya believe it was the small arms(not just pistols) in the hands of the rebels (with some air support from NATO) that enabled them to topple Quadaffi. No small arms don't work against tanks...but they do work against boots on the ground nicely the bulk of any army. After all the US has been in Iraq since 2003 and Afghanistan since 2001. As recently as a couple of years back our commanding general in Afghanistan pleaded with Obama for reinforcements, saying we were on the verge of losing the whole thing. The rebels don't have tanks, no air force, no navy, no weapons of mass destruction yet have managed to fight the US military for a decade. Just with small arms IED's, and rocket propelled grenades and the will to fight. And yet somehow I have heard our gun control folks in the US claim it is "silly" to think 90 million gun owners in the US could possibly fight the US military if push comes to shove and we became a dictotorship. Things like Joe average vs a navy seal..ridiculous etc. Yeah 2000 navy seals vs 90 million gun owner sure they would clean our clocks.

[tomclarke]

I would suggest that the exception does not disprove the rule. I believe MOST violence, or more importantly most POTENTIAL violence is indeed rational.

POTENTIAL violence which does not happen is dificult to quantify. We can say definitely from statistics that lack of gun availability does not make this POTENTIAL violence actualise.

Nobody attacks a grizzly bear, nor matter how angry they might get. Why? Because they know absolutely that they will get ripped to shreds.

The Fear/Flight response is part of human firmware. It is rare for someone to initiate violence against someone who they are certain will hurt them badly.

Humans are bad at judging risk, and in an argument tend to ignore possible risks. Which is why as a species we often fight. Fights with guns are more serious.

Even animals know this. Creatures that attack stronger creatures are generally suffering from some sort of diseases such as rabies, in which case the violence is actually irrational.

What you may regard as "irrational" violence is nothing of the sort. That person initiating what to you seems irrational has already weighed the probability of success prior to initiating the violent act, and has deemed the risk worth the effort.

I could not disagree more. People are not like most other animals, and habitually indulge in violence which is not rational, wars, fights, etc.

There are a very few people who go on mass killing sprees, with guns. they are universally caught, usually within a few hours. How is tis rtional behaviour?

In an anarchy it is possible that killing others would be rational. Certainly enslaving others using force is a common human trait which is one reason for valuing lawful and law-enforcing governments.

With a law-enforcing government those who kill people get caught. Those who use violence get caught. All that is needed for a weak person to get redress is a phone call to the police.

Most violence in UK is between people who know each other, not strangers. In this case violence is easily detected, and culprits punished. these facts are known. Therefore violence is not rational behaviour. In fact even if not caught violence between people who know eachother is clearly not rational. I don't think US different.

If your view were correct, in the UK there would be subjugation of defenseless citizens by others due to their lack of defense. There is none such, except in very small parts of the country where gangs rule and there is no law.

It is well established that those who carry knives to school are more at risk of serious harm due to knives than those who do not. This is causative: carrying a knife means that quarrels with others who carry kives become more serious and lead to injury.

You may wish to argue that the children who do not carry knives are slaves of those who do. It is not true, generally the more confident children do not carry knives.

It is an ironic fact that the main reason given for children carrying knives to school is fear of knives, in spite of strong evidence that carrying a knife makes a knife attack much more likely.

Note that carrying of knives at school is a sign of law breaking down - it occurs only in a very few areas.

Even in the case of someone run amuck, Such as the Virginia Tech shooter, he did not irrationally chose to attack people with his bare hands, he rationally chose to bring a gun because he knew that gave him an advantage over the people he sought to kill. Had he been certain he would meet people as well armed as himself, he would have either deferred or brought better equipment.

Even with better equipment, had he been facing an armed populace, his effort would have been short lived. (Literally.)

His attack was profoundly irrational, since the results for him were bad. (Assuming he was caught, as nearly all such are).

Look at the statistics in the essay I linked above. Most gun violence is between people who know each other, as a result of an escalating argument, and therefore perpetrators are caught and punished. It is therefore profoundly irrational.

[krenshala]

I always carried a knife to school. A good sharp pocket knife is a very useful tool, and on a number of occasions I let the teacher borrow it to open stuff.

Of course, that was ~30 years ago when the US wasn't such a nanny-state where everyone must be protected from themselves. Now days, if I was in highschool, I know for sure I would get in trouble by sitting quietly at my desk with a blank look on my face. When asked why I was doing that, I would reply, "I've left my brain at home. We aren't allowed weapons in school."

[tomclarke]

I always carried a knife to school. A good sharp pocket knife is a very useful tool, and on a number of occasions I let the teacher borrow it to open stuff.

Of course, that was ~30 years ago when the US wasn't such a nanny-state where everyone must be protected from themselves. Now days, if I was in highschool, I know for sure I would get in trouble by sitting quietly at my desk with a blank look on my face. When asked why I was doing that, I would reply, "I've left my brain at home. We aren't allowed weapons in school."

The UK knife laws, thank god, allow pocket knives to be carried as long as they are not flick knives. Though alas I am afraid now at school people might get into trouble - but maybe not.

There is a tendency to stop people from killing themselves, banning dangerous sports, making cliff paths safe with railings (not everywhere, thank heavens) councils are liable if somone trips up on a hole in the pavement.

But knife crime at schools is really nasty, children get killed. Some schools only. I don't think it existed 40 years ago.

[tomclarke]

Ghandi did pretty well in India.

I think this argument is a bit theoretical. Are you saying that if every Libyan had a handgun Ghaddaffi would not have been able to rule? I doubt that. Handguns don't work against tanks.

In the UK anyone in the police who wanted to kill citizens (even criminals) would be quickly removed. The only allowance is where it is genuinely thought killing is the only way to prevent immediate harm to self or others others.

Ghandi did well against the British...doubt if he would have done as well against Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. They would have had no compunction against arresting torturing and executing him before he became famous. I believe at one point Ghandi was asked if he thought it would have worked against Hitler, his answer as I recall was something to the effect well eventually but only after many more lives lost. I also believe that Ghandi said: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. In the case of Libya believe it was the small arms(not just pistols) in the hands of the rebels (with some air support from NATO) that enabled them to topple Quadaffi. No small arms don't work against tanks...but they do work against boots on the ground nicely the bulk of any army. After all the US has been in Iraq since 2003 and Afghanistan since 2001. As recently as a couple of years back our commanding general in Afghanistan pleaded with Obama for reinforcements, saying we were on the verge of losing the whole thing. The rebels don't have tanks, no air force, no navy, no weapons of mass destruction yet have managed to fight the US military for a decade. Just with small arms IED's, and rocket propelled grenades and the will to fight. And yet somehow I have heard our gun control folks in the US claim it is "silly" to think 90 million gun owners in the US could possibly fight the US military if push comes to shove and we became a dictotorship. Things like Joe average vs a navy seal..ridiculous etc. Yeah 2000 navy seals vs 90 million gun owner sure they would clean our clocks.

For us in the UK it is very strange to hear that people in a democracy feel the need to have weapons to stage a coup just in case the government turns bad.

Our governments and politicians can so easily be removed when they are no longer popular. And the trend is towards greater transparency - we know what they spend, what they say, our judges can review decisions if it is thought they are inconsistent with stated policies.

And if people dislike a policy enough massive nonviolent protests will sway any government, without elections. It has happened.

In the US there is a very strong feeling that every family must be armed against aggressors, together with a deep suspicion of ferderal government, that does not exist here.