Thoughts on today's news, and defining evil.

[zenmondo]

So, again, listening to the news on the way home from dropping buffalogal off at work. Today it is news that really encourages me. Bill Frist has broken away from the President's view and is now supporting stem cell research!

Its nice to see the legislature trying to be a balance to the executive branch instead of its lapdog.

Ofcourse stem cell research has a bit of an ethical quandry, with the use of human embryos as a source for stem cells. The president and those that agree with him see this as a destruction of human life. Those on the other side of the divide see this is an acceptable sacrifice for the potential of cures and improvement of life to those who could benefit from embryonic stem cells. So, like most things, I am conflicted, but I lean more towards favoring research that can help human beings who are suffering, as oppossed to protecting potential human beings who may or may not ever be anything beyond an embryo.\

Thinking about this today in the car, I also came to a small realization. It is pretty likely that these embryos do not have a mind. Certainly they are human cells, but they are not human beings. Just as cells that are seperated from my mind are alive, but not "me".

I think it comes down to weighing the amount of suffering that each action would take. The destruction of a mindless group of human cells is a suffering -- for the human being that collection of chromosomes will never become -- but it is a very abstract suffering. Then there are those that can directly benefit from embryonic stem cells, and the relief of suffering. To deny these people that are already suffering a potential relief from this, is in my opinion evil.

Evil is a very, very tricky thing to define. I have been thinking about what constitutes evil for a few years now. "Knowing it when I see it" is not good enough for me, so I have been struggling for a definition. I've been hesitant to say "I got it" and write it down anywhere, but I think I may be ready to "test drive" my current working definition.

Evil is the infliction of suffering.

That is as concise as I can get. There were other working versions such as "the intention infliction..." and "... of suffering in others" or the addition of "... by action or inaction". But I think the short version covers it. Ofcourse we open up the can of worms as to what constitutes "suffering". So maybe in another 3 years I might have that one -- it took about that long for this definition of evil. Right now its "I know it when I see it".

Comments

[opheliasclone.livejournal.com]

The huge, huge majority of embryos don't make it. Some are chromosomally impaired and doomed from the start. Many others aren't lucky enough to implant in the womb, in the same way that the huge majority of sperm aren't lucky enough to implant in the egg. Still others fail to divide properly early on, for reasons we don't seem to understand very well.

It's estimated that even among the embryos that make it past the earliest stages to the point where they can be easily detected, two thirds are flushed out of women's bodies because they failed to mature enough to change hormonal processes before the woman's next period comes along. Most times this occurs, the woman has no idea she was ever pregnant.

It isn't that I don't respect life. It's that I respect the differences between embryonic life and it's variability as compared to human life as you and I know it. It simply does not follow for me that because we would never harm another fully developed human, we should therefore never harm an embryo.

In the end, I think this will be a mostly moot point. Progress will find a way to reproduce the results of embryonic stem cell research without the destruction of viable human embryos. The problem comes with soothing the concerned minds of those who can't yet see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[imnotbob.livejournal.com]

Evil is the infliction of suffering.

I would add intentional and with malice to that.

After all, some medical procedures can cause suffering but its for a good reason, not to mention sometimes parents inflict suffering on their children. Both cases though are for the sufferers own good.

I would also say a good working definition would be 'Anyone who disagrees with me!' to that but the white house already has that market cornered ;)

[aikiwombat.livejournal.com]

So does that mean that the "infliction" of small/temporary suffering in order to relieve big/permanent suffering is exempt from being labeled "evil"?

;D

[imnotbob.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah for the most part.

[zenmondo.livejournal.com]

I left out "intentional" because ignorance can lead to an evil act, even unintentionaly. It also goes into the mindset of the one doing what I would consider evil, and not the act itself.

[imnotbob.livejournal.com]

But are the acts in and of them selves evil or is it the mindset behind the act?


(I like discussions like this)

[zenmondo.livejournal.com]

The acts. Actions are real things, intentions are something nebulous that is only known by the person with them.

An action done in ignorance of its consequences can be one of the most evil things there is.

[imnotbob.livejournal.com]

Here is how I see it. Its not the acts themselvs that are evil, its the people who perform the acts.

Now, since none of us are mindreaders, we can only judge people by their acts, and to a lesser extent on their words.

[nectarfizz.livejournal.com]

Like you Zen I am leaning towards the stem research idea...my only beef is with the government picking up the bill. Thats not fair to tax payers who unlike me are Pro-life. I mean they have a right to not want to pay for stem research they don't believe in just as I have a right to believe it is a good idea. I dunno what are your thoughts on this issue?

[zenmondo.livejournal.com]

Well, taxpayers have very little say as to what their portion of the tax burden goes toward. For instance many of us are against war, but we do not have the option of witholding our tax payments to go to the military.

I think using tax dollars to fund this medical research is for the greater good -- even for those who are pro-life. These are not naturaly conceived embryos that are removed from a mother's body. These embryos have done nothing resembling gestation, so only for someone that deals in absolutes is it truley a pro-life or anti-abortion issue.

[nectarfizz.livejournal.com]

I hadn't thought of that. I personally am all for Stem Cell research. I assumed it was the embryos of aborted fetuses. I am glad you shared this info with me.