Let me start off by saying that I think it's inherently wrong to look to Philosophers and bioethisists for universal answers as their fields of study refute the idea of an answer. They are IMO there to ask questions and postulate ideas; any attempt to combine opinion with science can at best provide a point for each individual to determine their personal opinion.

One glaring problem that I see with this attempt at such an early bright line distinction, as postulated by the authors, is that at best the developmental program is in its preliminary stages. There is a production plan but you can bet there will be change orders during actual production. Yes there is a detailed plan in place, which may or may not lead to a viable baby but there are also many outside influences which can change that plan at a moments notice. Let's look at one instant which, IMO, provides a pretty irrefutable example of this "plan flexibility".

At some point after the bright line fertilization Mom is prescribed a little thalidomide to keep her stress down (I believe that this was the reason for the thalidomide prescriptions) guess what? Mom just sent a change order for the program, we've decided to reduce the size of the right arm by half - add three extra fingers to the left hand and you won't be getting feet on either leg although we will add a second 1/4 left arm just below the original plan.

This was just the most graphic example that I could think of but consider all the warnings to pregnant women about how they might harm their child’s development in utero. FAS, the affects of smoking - the possible neurological effects (changes in plan) of drug use. IMO, on a quick surface examination the bright line argument at the conception stage cannot hold water.

morganb:

Let me start off by saying that I think it's inherently wrong to look to Philosophers and bioethisists for universal answers as their fields of study refute the idea of an answer.

As a philosopher, I was quite alarmed to discover this just now. I very much want to learn how my field of study "refutes the idea of an answer."

Please read more carefully. First as I said it was my opinion and second it should be relatively obvious that the second use of the word answer has the same reference as the first and that would be "universal" answers. I in no way meant to denigrate the importance of these fields but again as I said IMO the important thing they provide is the question and theories about how they relate to things like morals and definitions of rights. Since each one of us has different definitions of these concepts the best these fields can produce are questions and arguments which we each must reconcile with our own sets of mores and beliefs. There is, by my definition, no such thing as a wrong philosophy only one I don't agree with.

Again I will point out that I feel that the questions and arguments are vitally important it is also IMO true that the "truths found are by their nature personal or situational not universal. Please do not make the mistake of assuming that belief and universal truth are the same

morganb:

Please read more carefully. First as I said it was my opinion and second it should be relatively obvious that the second use of the word answer has the same reference as the first and that would be "universal" answers.

No, I got that. And thanks for your counsel on not assuming that belief and universal truth are the same, though I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on that one, too. I guess the reason for my "alarm" was that I would feel quite sheepish pursuing the profession of philosophy if, after carefully taking account of competing definitions and perspectives and such as you describe, it turned out that it were not even possible in principle to be ("universally") right (or wrong) about the matters at issue. It seems to me that this would make it quite difficult to account for the value in philosophy you so readily acknowledge. Why exactly would it be so valuable to formulate questions and theories if all answers were necessarily merely "personal or situational"?

It seems to me that this would make it quite difficult to account for the value in philosophy you so readily acknowledge. Why exactly would it be so valuable to formulate questions and theories if all answers were necessarily merely "personal or situational"?

First let me say that this sort of discussion generally takes hours if not years and lifetimes and is IMO best done over good food, fine libation, and the occasional good cigar so I apologize if this post goes long or tends to ramble. Here goes.

First I wanted to make sure that my definition of the term was generally correct so I went to Wiki and here is what I found.

From Wikipedia

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).[1][2] The word is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), meaning love of wisdom.[3]

Main article: Definition of philosophy

Though no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial, and the field has historically expanded and changed depending upon what kinds of questions were interesting or relevant in a given era, it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy. Different philosophers have had varied ideas about the nature of reason, and there is also disagreement about the subject matter of philosophy.

So the very short justification for my position is, according to the wiki, this ”no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial, and the field has historically expanded and changed depending upon what kinds of questions were interesting or relevant in a given era,”

Based on this I would say that my premise wasn’t too out there so let me try and explain it this way. In the Morganverse that I live in I have no expectation that anybody has to believe in the same things I believe in. Hell, in running groups of people it has constantly been proven to me that I can’t even expect everybody to have the same definition of any given word until we agree on it. Even pure science has very few if any universal truths you see in the Morganverse there is no such thing as a non-theoretical absolute and black is extremely dark grey while white is extremely light grey. I believe that there are dinosaur bones as I have seen them but since I didn’t dig any up and haven’t been lucky enough to see one in it’s natural habitat that belief is really only a leap of faith as I can postulate other ways that those things I have seen could have been created (I know at least one really good commercial sculptor). So by my definition my truth that dinosaurs existed is based solely on my experience and the body of evidence I have seen makes it, IMO, infinitely more likely that they did than that they didn’t. That’s my truth, admittedly it‘s a truth shared by most others but it is not universal and the meaning of those bones becomes even fuzzier. For someone who has actually dug up those bones that truth is as close to absolute as it gets but even they make the admittedly infinitely likely assumption that some warped sculptor from planet Boz didn’t plant them when he created the earth 25 years ago. Those Bozian sculptors are not only good but incredibly devious you know.

IMO the coolest part of science isn’t when you solve a puzzle but the new puzzles that arise from that solution and the new questions that arise when someone comes up with a situation where your solution doesn’t completely work. Don’t get me wrong the sense of solving something is very cool but once you’ve basked in your accomplishment the excitement over the next step, the next question takes over. The thing that history tells us about science is that its universal truths are generally short lived.

You ask, "Why exactly would it be so valuable to formulate questions and theories if all answers were necessarily merely "personal or situational"? Let me answer by paraphrasing a character from Jurassic park. Science answers the question CAN I?

Philosophy asks the question SHOULD I? I postulate that no mater what, that answer will be situational and personal based on how you internalize the questions and the arguments and how they relate to the actual situation and your life experiences. Now we can make rules based on the ethics of the majority at the time but those are by definition not universal.

So there it is, in my little Morganverse the question “should I?” is at least as important as the question “can I?”.

O and by the way thanks for the discussion. You’ve challenged me to justify my thought process which requires me to examine it, which is a good thing. While I don’t expect you to agree with it, since you asked the question, I hope at least you better understand where I am coming from.

morganb:

That’s my truth...

By "truth" I mean something very plain and boring: the way the world is. In supposing that there is a (universal) truth that might in principle be discovered, I suppose only that there is some way the world is.

For what it's worth, I can tell you that actual professional philosophers are regularly utterly baffled by the degree of resistance to this claim among first-year students. Of course, as philosophers we hold nothing sacrosanct and do look at sophisticated arguments to the contrary. But it is extremely difficult to comprehend what an argument against this claim could even be. Of what is it trying to convince us, if there is no truth to be right or wrong about?

My only guidance to you would be to consider whether your thoughts about 1) skepticism and thresholds of belief justification, and 2) the relative coolness of finding a plain answer vs. opening up a whole new avenue of questions and ideas, really need drag universal truth into the discussion at all. It sounds as though you have plenty of interesting ideas to discuss without bogging yourself down in the morass of relativism.

axon wrote

My only guidance to you would be to consider whether your thoughts about 1) skepticism and thresholds of belief justification, and 2) the relative coolness of finding a plain answer vs. opening up a whole new avenue of questions and ideas, really need drag universal truth into the discussion at all. It sounds as though you have plenty of interesting ideas to discuss without bogging yourself down in the morass of relativism.

I thank you for your proffered guidance but as I explained I have no expectation that you need to agree with me and I am quite happy with my world view and I seem to have plenty of time to consider these things without bogging down. I have to wonder though since I have no interest in changing how you view the world and was as stated only interested in explaining why I made the statements you challenged and giving them some context as to why you feel compelled to change me. Especially without providing good well-reasoned arguments as to why your way is better and what it's benefits are.

I have developed my philosophy about life through 50+ years of living it, questioning it, and trying to figure out why people act in unpredictable ways and all my observation so far have led me to conclude that as far as I can tell we are often working from different truths, with different definitions, and the same names. I'm sure you have a very similar story and have come to different conclusions. I can accept our differences. I will try to understand why you believe what you believe both because it adds to my understanding of the world and because it helps to understand how you will respond to any given situation. But I feel no need to try and bring you over to my side or to co-opt your side. My philosophy does change over time but as I get older those changes become slower as there is more life momentum to overcome.

So how about this, I will respect your position whether I agree or not and I will accept that you might want me to change mine. in the mean time I will continue to ask myself all the questions I ask myself, as that is who I am and how I operate, and I will be contented that I have explained myself as well as I am able, without a degree in philosophy, and allow as how you will challenge your views or not based on your own modis.

Sorry -- I did not mean to sound condescending by offering "guidance." From what I can tell from this, you are using the word "truth" to mean something different from what I mean (see above). For instance, if you think that positing "personal truths" and denying universal truth could explain some empirical observations you have made of people's behaviour, we are are clearly talking past each other.

Perhaps you would regard this as some kind of a demonstration of your point. I'm not sure. If so, I simply urge you to consider that 1) one's definitions of concepts, 2) one's beliefs about the world, and 3) the truth, are profitably distinguished from one another. Which I acknowledge is a strange note upon which to conclude in light of the fact that your first response to me concluded with much the same thought. Indeed, I might have concluded by now that we do not even disagree about anything (except perhaps how the word "truth" ought to be used) if you were not evidently still sure that we do.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

morganb:

One glaring problem that I see with this attempt at such an early bright line distinction, as postulated by the authors, is that at best the developmental program is in its preliminary stages.

There is a second bright, albeit moving, line. That is at viability. However, as science advances, the gap between conception continues to shrink. It will one day disappear.

The third bright line, is birth. There are some pro-choicers in the US who won't even draw the line there.