Number 95 : February 1999 |
Straight in at the deep end again this outing.
Anthony Owens (C94/5) : Since you were kind enough to try to avoid using the words "scrape" and "barrel" when considering my comments I'll try to avoid using the words "talking out his arse" considering yours. It seems we hold each others views on abortion in similar high regard. I don't think we're likely to convert each other.
On a more constructive note, you are indeed correct in suspecting a degree of support for your "licence to populate" idea. I still don't see why being married should be taken as showing the "necessary commitment" - the less so when one considers divorce statistics. People marry for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with raising children. I'm not sure there are any criteria that are "valid" save retrospectively - such as having raised decent law-abiding, well-adjusted offspring.
And what does one do about folk who go right ahead and populate anyway ? Abort any unlicensed foetuses perhaps ?
Michael Nisbet (C94/11) : " ... the fact of ref1exive awareness ..." ? Now, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your general argument - but is reflexive awareness actually a fact any more than "soul", "spirit", "free-will" or whatever other label one cares to hang on the thing ?
And how do we know it's unique to, and a distinguishing feature of, "human life" ? Indeed how can it be if you're prepared to consider that it may be present, if in differing and "lesser" degree, in other living things ? You seem to be making a somewhat quantitative, rather than qualitative distinction here, almost Orwellian.
John Neary (C94/15): Descartes Rules - and my "knowing" I'm dreaming is no less suspect (or retrospective) than any other claim to "know" anything. I could simply be dreaming that I'm aware that I'm dreaming that ... etc. Can we be said to be "truly aware!" of anything ?
Rick Street (C94/34): If you're taking "species" to mean "any group of related animals" then "Bat" does indeed, I grant, count as "a species of animal".
If however, as was implicit in the frame of reference under consideration, "Bat" refers to flying mammals, members of the Order Chiroptera, then as a general term it could refer to any one of - or a number of - species within that Order, or the whole Order.
Thus the fact that there are many species of bats seems perfectly relevant (although the fact that "Bat is a species of animal" may not be) since, as you rightly point out, this is a philosophy based SIG. Obvious now ?
Stef Gula