Applied Ethics: Human Experimentation. Yeah or nah?
Sooooooooo, this is the second to last lecture where we are "applying" the mutiple ethical/moral theories we have been exploring over the semester. This is one of my favorites, and the students bring up some interesting points in the discussion.
Bottom line, as is often the case, the question of human experimentation remains bound up with what we mean by human. As I point out in the discussion, back in the day human = image of god = person (though in all honestly the term "person" did not even exist yet. Kant attempted to limit it to person = rational being, eliminating both "human" and "image of god". In fact, Kant stresses that being a rational being need not be limited to being human; he even argues for "aliens" that might look like Lizard People, but are still rational, i.e., persons.
Today we more or less follow Kant's lead, i.e., human is a biological term. For example, a "human" fetus is clearly "human", but it is NOT clear that a human fetus is a person. In fact, legal it is NOT a person. So what IS a person exactly? That is the question we are exploring in this lecture/discussion.
Good stuff here, if not a bit "edgy". Enjoy!!
I wish I'd had more teachers like you - I might still be in school on my deathbed :-) So many want to teach WHAT, rather than HOW.
It IS hard, but does that mean we just sit on our thumbs until we have IT all figured out? That will be a long, LONG time (I hope). Why? Because once there is (absolute) certainty, what happens to freedom (creativity, etc)?
At some point, you just have to do the best you can do in the moment and be ready and willing to adjust as more information/understanding becomes available (and of course be willing to remain open (uncertain) and continual ly seek more, More, MORE!).
I fully agree rod. But that is also why I argue philosophy must be MORE than a mere worldview, as any hack can have a worldview. That said, philosophy simply shows one "how" to approach complexity, it does not provide any real "certainty" beyond what the ancient Greeks called "phonesis"--Heidegger defined this as "circumspective insight", and that sounds about right.
When I teach "phonesis" I use the example of the gunfighter in the "wild" West. The gunfighter always made sure they were in a "place" where they could cover all their angles. Did this mean the gunfighter was always safe/correct, not at all. Rather, it simply meant the gunfighter had some level of wisdom defined by his/her activities and the environment in which they found themselves.
This is why I push back on the idea of philosophy as a mere worldview. But I hear ya, totally.
If that is what I said, I misspoke. I don't think of philosophy as JUST a worldview either, but at the VERY least, should INFORM one's worldview.
If you don't . . . agitate about the ways/whys shit works, I am not sure you (a person) HAVE a worldview so much as . . . possessed by one. Like the addict - at a certain point you have to wonder: are you smoking the xyz or is it smoking you?
One either ACQUIRES a worldview (culture, socialization) or BUILDS one. (and then introspects DEEPLY (hopefully) when he finds his actions don't exactly match his . . . cogitations :-)
I assume you intend to continue this series on into (more of) your conception of the science of philosophy - I look forward to it.
BTW, phronesis or "circumspective insight" could be compared to the ancient greek from which the word FAITH has been translated.
The translated word "faith" in the NT comes from the greek PISTIS, which is derived from the root word PEITHO which basically means (IN MY OPINION :-) to prove a thing true or false by evidence, argument, reason or experiment and through the guidance of your inner authority/insight.
Yeah that would have to be further researched before I could go that far. I will say that in terms of how the philosophers use the term "phronesis", often translated as "prudence" looks not to true/false, but rather as probability; which by the nature of the flux demands a more open stance toward Being than offered by logical claims of true/false. Which is what I hear Plato attempting to point out as well.
Since the roots of phronesis are related to "thinking" and "mind" and often translated as "practical wisdom" (or "prudence"), it looks to me like "phronesis" could also be easily associated with "judgment" (requiring analysis, thought, decision) which would bring in probability due to the uncertainty inherent in varying environments/conditions.
Great post. If you want more followers and upvotes (I usually get 10 - 15 upvotes per post), join my upvote exchange at https://steemfollower.com/?r=3719