I would do anything for $100
The posting "The Embryo Eaters: Part 2 -- PZ Meyers and McEmbryos" at Evangelical Outpost
asks the pro-choicers what is wrong in principle in eating a small
human embryo, especially if doing so would result in a large cash
reward.
This question reminded me of another scenario that I once thought of. Suppose someone claims that animals are just very complex machines with no actual consciousness inside them, which only humans really have. For example, Rene Descartes believed this. Would such a person be able to demonstrate their beliefs by beating a cute puppy to death with a baseball bat? Would his refusal to do this prove that he doesn't actually believe that animals are only very complex machines?
There is another thing to consider. The person probably understands the social realities and what would happen to him if he did beat the puppy to death in a society that generally frowns upon such activities. It would therefore be very rational to go against his beliefs and not demonstrate them in practice. Similarly, even the most fervent pro-choicer would be smart to not engage in cannibalism in our society, for the sake of his future life and interactions with other people, for the same reason that it is not smart for two gay guys to travel to present-day Teheran and start passionately kissing each other in public.
A possible counter would now be to change the situation so that the test is done in secret so that nobody would ever know that you ate the embryo or beat the puppy to death. But how exactly does one guarantee that this will remain a secret, without massive flights of fancy? (I have always wondered these parts in these hypothetical questions, such as "nobody would ever know", "you knew you wouldn't get caught" etc.) Therefore it would still be perfectly rational to refuse to perform these acts, since at least on a subconscious level everyone knows the inherent uncertainty of the future. For this reason, these hypotheticals don't really provide any additional insight about the inherent value of embryos and puppies.
This question reminded me of another scenario that I once thought of. Suppose someone claims that animals are just very complex machines with no actual consciousness inside them, which only humans really have. For example, Rene Descartes believed this. Would such a person be able to demonstrate their beliefs by beating a cute puppy to death with a baseball bat? Would his refusal to do this prove that he doesn't actually believe that animals are only very complex machines?
There is another thing to consider. The person probably understands the social realities and what would happen to him if he did beat the puppy to death in a society that generally frowns upon such activities. It would therefore be very rational to go against his beliefs and not demonstrate them in practice. Similarly, even the most fervent pro-choicer would be smart to not engage in cannibalism in our society, for the sake of his future life and interactions with other people, for the same reason that it is not smart for two gay guys to travel to present-day Teheran and start passionately kissing each other in public.
A possible counter would now be to change the situation so that the test is done in secret so that nobody would ever know that you ate the embryo or beat the puppy to death. But how exactly does one guarantee that this will remain a secret, without massive flights of fancy? (I have always wondered these parts in these hypothetical questions, such as "nobody would ever know", "you knew you wouldn't get caught" etc.) Therefore it would still be perfectly rational to refuse to perform these acts, since at least on a subconscious level everyone knows the inherent uncertainty of the future. For this reason, these hypotheticals don't really provide any additional insight about the inherent value of embryos and puppies.
If a person derives sadistic pleasure from something he does to something, does that show that he believes it's capable of suffering? After all it would be pointles to be cruel to something that doesn't have any consciousness.
Posted by Matti | 4:59 PM
I don't really have any opinion on the extent social attitudes affect people's desire to eat embryos and beat puppies to death, but now that I think of it I realize that I certainly wouldn't take a baseball bat to a machine complex enough to behave like a puppy, either.
Would eat an embryo for money, though. At least if provided with enough sauce and allowed to eat only the meaty parts.
Posted by Vera | 6:04 PM
Does this eating-thing apply to pro-capital punishment people too?
If you are for capital punishment, you should eat those who are executed.
Obviously those both are bullshit-arguments.
Posted by Anonymous | 7:12 AM