A little Help on an Ethical belief please?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

What really is the difference in Human value when juxtaposing adults who have severe mental deficiency and a newborn baby?

I have heard that Humans, as a species, have value not because they are human, but because of various human characteristics

1. Reason and rationality
2. Autonomy
3. Intelligence
4. Sapience and sentience.

Now, Newborns have basic functions and brain activit, and they have a min. level of autonomy (as they are not living in someone else's body), but how do they stack up with the other factors? I have heard newborns have a low IQ, less than that of a Cat, low intelligence, and they aren't aware untill some time later. Is that accurate? If so, how does one differentiate between a Newborn and the value of someone severely mentally handicapped who is barely autonomous/rational/sapient?

If people don't have most of the above, are their lives not valuable past the bare minimum of autonomy? I am very concerned about this.

It would seem to me that if you aren't aware and aren't autonomous, then you have very low value, but what if you have autonomy, but not rational awareness? Or what if you are so defective that you hardly have any and cannot even appreciate life, yet you aren't in a coma or something?

What justifications could there be for euthanasia or termination based on lack of value? Is there really a line? What if they don't have the above, which many ethicists and anthropologists consider "valuable" in Human Life.

Does potential ability factor into the equation to cancel out some of the above? For example, a newborn has the potential to become aware, more autonomous, and intelligent/rational, but someone who's brain dead or severely mentally damaged/handicapped, does not always have that. But then, how would the potential argument for value work. That's what many say about why abortions would be wrong. Should you look at the now, instead of the later for both cases?

They seem very confusing to me, but they seem somewhat similar...

[wilfulton]

Odd, in my experience, people are often bereft of reason, and are hardly rational.

As far as the IQ of a newborn, I would question it being lower than that of a cat. How do you perform such a test on a newborn, and on a cat? If said newborn is not "aware" of his surroundings, what can you base this off of? Likewise, we have to have to remember that cats are very autonomous creatures, and unless there's something in it for them, they could care less about the whole test:)

Hell, yours is a good question! And very hard to answer at that. Hope I can offer some insight.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I was just confused. I don't really know what makes humasn valuable. IF i could, it would be so much easier to evaluate the severely mentally ill and early fetuses.

[Zero]

There is always the possibility that there isn't specifically anything that makes a human valuable. There's a decent possibility that we just believe so, because all our interactions with people seem to be based around such a concept. If we think about ways that morals come about, it's generally because of ideas that promote their own spread into other individuals, and one trait of such an idea is the concept of promoting the well-being of others. If you promote the well-being of others that share the same idea, then the idea itself will prosper, so that primarily the kinds of things we're told at young ages will promote the concept of consideration towards others. Really, there doesn't necessarily have to be anything special about us. Perhaps all it is is that we can vocalize ideas, and understand them, so we still have the drive to protect our ideas.

As for me... I'll still go with my potential argument.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Potential always bothered me. I never really understand how far is too far. There's usually potential for something all the time. Not all the time, but usually.

[Zero]

Yes, and there are various methods of measuring potential. You can try to base it on financial success, impact on the world, or maybe just how the guy might/might not be remembered. Potential is just my means because other qualifiers don't make any sense to me. I'd say it's more likely that there is nothing special about people, but... meh...

[Kuroneko]

It would seem to me that if you aren't aware and aren't autonomous, then you have very low value, but what if you have autonomy, but not rational awareness? Or what if you are so defective that you hardly have any and cannot even appreciate life, yet you aren't in a coma or something?

I prefer to think of human life having value due to the kinds of experiences the individual (and those around her or him) has (have) throughout life. This makes all of your criteria, reason/rationality, autonomy, intelligence, and sapience/sentience as simply the means to those experiences, and neatly avoids the above problem, thus being compatible with euthanasia in such cases.

What justifications could there be for euthanasia or termination based on lack of value? Is there really a line? What if they don't have the above, which many ethicists and anthropologists consider "valuable" in Human Life.

An adherent of this value-from-potential account is not required to posit these conditions as necessary for the individual to have a valueable life, merely sufficient, but yes, this account is compatabile with euthanasia (although it is also compatible with any other principles that could forbid euthanasia).

Does potential ability factor into the equation to cancel out some of the above? For example, a newborn has the potential to become aware, more autonomous, and intelligent/rational, but someone who's brain dead or severely mentally damaged/handicapped, does not always have that.

Exactly.

But then, how would the potential argument for value work. That's what many say about why abortions would be wrong.

Not necessarily. The key thing to understand is that although potential is important, there are still degrees of it, depending on how close the potential is to being realized. An newborn child is exercising his or her learning ability to develop the capability to have or create in others the kinds of experiences that make human life valuable, while a fetus is obviously at least one step removed, lacking that learning ability. It then seems unproblematic to hold that an infant is much more valuable than the fetus, since although they both have the potential far in the future, it is of wholly a different kind. In fact, some time ago I've had a debate with Mr. Wong about almost this very issue, and it is this realization of just how underdetermined this account of the value of human life is that forced my concession.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Ahh thanks. How do you deal with the severely mentally handicapped, in your opinion? How much potential and value do they have? I am primarily talking about people who are barely happy, can really express themselves, engage in life. They can't reason or contribute to society.

Obviously, many handicapped are worth a lot, since they themselves are happy and many more can still contribute, but what about those who cannot do either. I got to thinking after the dicussion on Education and the idea that it was a waste of time to educate the severely handicapped in academics, since they won't be using it anyway

[Kuroneko]

Having less potential does not preclude the right to live. Are you talking about value as in right to live or in the use of resources? You seem to switch contexts from the former in the OP to the latter here.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Both right to live and use resources. I wasn't sure how to treat the severely mentally handicapped in some circumstances, based on their value (originally). I really don't know how to factor potential in with them, since it doesn't seem like they have much.

[Jarl Sven]

You’ve raised one of the all time biggies and like many complex questions the answer s “it depends”

I suppose that the underlying principle is that you can’t be just a little bit human

you either are or you aren’t


My brother is mentally handicapped and I bristle at the thought of someone suggesting that he has less “value” than anyone else.


Of course in real life we make decisions on people’s “value” every day from how we allocate public resources to who we choose to spend time with on any given day

but to answer your basic question, yes potential can have a big impact;.for example consider the response to the death of a 9 year old verses a 90 year old

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

yes. It seems somewhat subjective. It makes you think "what purpouse" do they have for soiciety if they themsleves cannot really experience life.

[Kuroneko]

yes. It seems somewhat subjective. It makes you think "what purpouse" do they have for soiciety if they themsleves cannot really experience life.

That is why I explicitly put "or create in others" clause in my above criteria, although it may not be necessary (again, I make no claim on whether these criteria are the only way an entity obtains a right to live, merely that they are sufficient to do so). If you are wary of both the 'none whatsoever' and 'full personhood' (biologically determined?) answers that are at the extremes of the spectrum, there is still a range of possibilities. Since your question is in regards to basically individuals of near-animal-level intelligence, you may be interested in looking up, say, Kant's treatment of animal rights, which although rather weak (Kant's system would hold that non-rational agents have no rights whatever, but evidently he tried to stick up for animals nonetheless), would be far more convincing if modified to this context (especially if elements of utilitarianism are accepted). Essentially, this would put certain duties on society in regards to the severelly mentally deficient individuals even if they have no one that cares about them, so in that sense, it would be a better answer.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think this is really a problem as long as you assign a certain "minimum threshold" level of mental capabilities to which you assign human value and human rights. Presumably, both a newborn baby and a mentally deficient adult would pass this "minimum threshold". A baby may not be capable of much on the surface, but if you look at how quickly it develops basic motor skills and communication skills, it is obviously quite intelligent. As for your statement about IQ tests, that is meaningless since a properly designed IQ test should always average 100 at any age group; the reason babies score poorly on IQ tests is simply that no one has devised a good IQ test for that age group. And a mentally deficient adult may not be particularly intelligent, but is generally much more capable of interacting with its environment in a complex manner than, say, an animal.

If, on the other hand, you use a sliding scale rather than a minimum threshold, your situation becomes more difficult because you have no choice but to assign severely limited value and rights to a newborn baby or a mentally deficient adult.

[Kuroneko]

If, on the other hand, you use a sliding scale rather than a minimum threshold, your situation becomes more difficult because you have no choice but to assign severely limited value and rights to a newborn baby or a mentally deficient adult.

That is true, but I'm not certain as to whether this is really a problem or strength. A case like this is problematic for it, but, say, for a hypothetical complication during birth that allows either the mother or the baby to be saved, but not both, my moral intuition says that the doctor should choose the mother, possibly barring the event that consent to do otherwise was given. Cases like this latter one these seem to fit best with a kind of sliding-scale potential-future system rather than a binary switch.

[Zero]

The problem I would have with a minimum threshold for defining human rights is that different people wouldn't want this minimum threshold to be the same. For example, fundamentalist christians didn't want TS dead, and don't want abortion. They may set the minimum threshold very low. I'm very likely wrong, but I simply don't see how you can set a minimum threshold unless you already have a specific goal in mind, in terms of what humans you want to have rights, and what humans you don't. Of course, the same can be said for a potential-future scale as well. Tricksy...

[Kuroneko]

That is indeed somewhat of a problem for both models (and actually a worrying portion of ethics in general), but in this case, not nearly to degree implied. Under the threshold model, Mrs. Schiavo's evident brain activity and level of interactivity with the environment was less than that of many animals, and for the fetus lesser still. The potential-future scale is rather grim to Mrs. Schiavo, so for these three possibilities, the prescription is only unclear to the PETA member. The fundementalist christian or abortionist would have to reject these models outright, if anything. Admittedly, the abortionist does have some wiggle room in the case of the fetus under the potential-future scale, but it would still assign a significantly lower class to the fetus according to the level of actualization of such potential, so it still makes a rather poor case for the abortionist. If the abortionist takes the potential-future as the defining property for right to live regardless of actualization, the position becomes untenable.

[Zero]

If we set a minimum threshold for intellect as our primary goal, do we get to include dolfins? Most realistic moral/ethical codes tend towards the improvement of the human condition, but if we set the minimum threshold as intellect, do we worry about animals that appear to have high intellectual ability? None so far appear to be as intellectually enabled as humans, but the potential inclusion is what bugs me about the minimum threshold idea. In the potential-future scale, humans are still above animals with similar intellectual capacities, if only because we can use our intellect more effectively, as we also have opposable thumbs. I still don't quite get it though... maybe we should just say that morals/ethics don't specifically make sense? That almost makes sense...

[Kuroneko]

Ah, I see your point now, but the problem is seemingly hinged on what counts as intelligence (specifically, current capabilities vs. learning ability, and in what context). That can be made to be quite narrow, but you're right--that's an easily contested issue. I completely disagree with your evaluation of the potential-future scale, though, since developed humans are far above intellectually than other animals. You seem to be saying that humans would never have evolved their intelligence without opposable thumbs, etc., but I fail to see the relevance of this--the intelligence is there now, or in the immediate future of a newborn human... also, what do you mean by "morals/ethics don't specifically make sense", particularly that 'specifically'? Are you arguing for a kind of casuistry without attempt at principles or nihilism?

[Zero]

Oh, no, lacking principles we can agree that everything would suck. I guess I was just saying that no moral code actually made sense unless you already agreed with it. And I wasn't saying that people wouldn't have evolved their intellect without opposable thumbs, I'm saying that people couldn't effectively use their intellect without opposable thumbs. Without our ability to make tools, and use them with our hands, our intellectual abilities would merely be to regulate timing of muscle movements. The ability to build things, manipulate our environment, is what truly sets us apart. And my example of using animals wasn't in comparison to a fullgrown adult. Following the theshold concept, I was saying that if you would allow a newborn baby to have certain rights, then there are creatures with greater intellectual function then the baby that you would have to take into account. I know that full-grown humans are the smartest in the world.

[Kuroneko]

And I wasn't saying that people wouldn't have evolved their intellect without opposable thumbs, I'm saying that people couldn't effectively use their intellect without opposable thumbs.

In the case of an individual without opposable thumbs, this is false, and in the case of the human race lacking opposable thumbs, no comparable intellect would develop, true, but I'm still unsure for the relevance of this distinction. The exact mechanics of the development of the intellect seem completely irrelevant to the potential-future scale, merely the fact that it does develop.

And my example of using animals wasn't in comparison to a fullgrown adult. Following the theshold concept, ... .

You explicitly stated the opposable-thumb comparison under the potential-future model.

[Zero]

I'm not saying that without thumbs, we wouldn't be intelligent. I'm saying that if the human race didn't have thumbs, we wouldn't have any ability to actually use our intellect. I'm not sure anymore that this relates to the argument at all. If I'm not making much sense, I'm sorry. Haven't gotten much sleep in the last few days.

[Kuroneko]

Methinks the problem is that we're operating on two entirely different conceptions of what constitutes 'intellect'. Your view requires that the intellect of an adult is not substantially more powerful, or even less powerful, that than of a newborn (which also explains your "humans are still above animals with similar intellectual capacities" comment, emphasis mine), while my view would have it that intellect develops during growth. In essense, your view is learning-oriented, which is prima facie reasonable, since it is true that children have phenomenal rate of learning (particularly in areas like language), but it ends up being problematic. Chimpanzee newborns learn at a rate comparable to that of human newborns, the difference is that humans continue to do so for many years after chimps hit a plateau of mental development. For this reason, it is better to define intellect by current mental skills rather rate of skill acquisition. The typical definition of "intelligence" actually denotes both areas, but unless we would have chimp babies just as valuable as human ones, it is best to strike out the former sense of the word; the ability to acquire new skills is still of fundamental importance through the potential-future model.

[wolveraptor]

For any species, its own survival is first and foremost, regardless of the "worth" of other species. Thus, when told to choose between a human baby and chimp baby of equal intelligence, we will invariably choose the human. With any other attitude, our species would've gone extinct long ago. In truth, there may not be a way to reason our preference to our own young over another, equally intelligent species' but we can say with certainty that evolutionary instinct will take over, and we will save our own, before another.

While I oppose 3rd trimester abortions, I would not object to a mother having a late abortion to save her life, if an unexpected snag comes up. It would be much more difficult to say the same thing of a newborn that the mother, due to lack of resources, cannot feed. This is because even without the mother, the baby still has potential to survive. A foster parent could take the baby, thus allowing it to live. A late term fetus, however, cannot easily survive outside the womb. However, if a potentially fatal birth could be avoided by transferring the baby to an artifical womb, I would whole-heartedly support it.

[Guy N. Cognito]

I don't have a hard set rule for these sorts of situations because they are very context sensitive. I try to weigh it three ways. Potential, ability to survive and continue the species, and moral. Potential is what they have the potential to become. I use the examples of a newborn, a mother and a mentally deficient indiviual. A newborn baby has far more potential then the brain damaged person who has plateaued with their mental development, a mother has a moderate potential. Ability to survive. This is the mentally challenged person and the mother, as a baby can't survive on it's own, but a baby and mother can do more to continue the species then a the mentally disabled person. And Moral, which I think many people over look. If we say some people have less rights due to their abilities, then it can cause people who are intelligent but not too intelligent to worry about their standing. It also creates a division and almost a class structure between people which can cause issues and abuse down the chain. People also react stronger to any harm done to a child rather then adults and women, especially mothers rank quite high too. Who should get more resources to expand and grow? Well, I think the child got the most votes, followed by the mother and then the mentally difficent. Spend the most resources on new infants and the mothers, and then the mentally challenged.