Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Bodily integrity vs moral responsibility

#11
Syne Offline
(Aug 23, 2016 03:20 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I thought the living a "true life" test for a minimum of one year was unreasonable, harmful, and even dangerous.

From that blogger you linked, they were talking about hormone replacement therapy, not GRS. Even though the prerequisites list both "Hormone treatment for at least one year" and "Living “true life” test for a minimum of one year", that does not mean they need be done concurrently. So a person could do the HRT until they feel comfortable "passing" as their gender identity and then go on to live the year full-time as that gender prior to GRS. But yeah, living as that gender before HRT does seem unreasonable.

IMO, a bit more time to mull over such an irreversible decision can't hurt. They will have to do HRT anyway, and once they're "passing" as their chosen gender, aside from sex, who's going to know otherwise. Beside, many transgenders never even do the GRS.

Quote:I don’t understand.  Objective view of the ethics?  Ethics are a set of moral principles. Objective morality?  Is there such a thing?

Well, there is certainly a more objective view of the ethics involved than the opinions and feelings of the people most burdened by such prerequisites, who likely have a vested interest in having as few as possible.

Ethical objectivism:
According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsehood of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history, in so much as they are true despite what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feelings. When they fail to describe this mind-independent moral reality, they are false—no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feelings.

There are many versions of ethical objectivism, including various religious views of morality, Platonistic intuitionism, Kantianism, utilitarianism, and certain forms of ethical egoism and contractualism...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivit...bjectivism



But here's the reason I'm asking. If society has any ethically justifiable obligation to restrict, or place prerequisites on, irreversible body alterations of healthy tissue, shouldn't those ethics apply universally? Are there specific cases where the physician/society has no ethical onus?
Reply
#12
Secular Sanity Offline
I don’t know but I do think we should just stick with subjective opinions. Sam Harris has argued that science can, and should be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values, and setting out what constitutes a good life.  However, I tend to agree with C C’s viewpoint in this area.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#Criticisms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_na...Criticisms
Reply
#13
Syne Offline
So why have prerequisites at all? If the subjective feeling of the person seeking any medical procedure is the only criteria for ethical consideration, the physician and society have no obligatory ethical onus. The "moral facts" are the outcomes. Would having no prerequisites lead to worse outcomes, because more people could make less rigorous decisions?

As soon as you say ethics should only rely on subjective opinion, you lose all ethical obligations between people. This includes, at the extreme, murder, since the perpetrator could justify any murder as somehow remedying a subjective threat...even when no objective evidence of threat exists.
Reply
#14
Secular Sanity Offline
(Aug 23, 2016 08:01 PM)Syne Wrote: So why have prerequisites at all? If the subjective feeling of the person seeking any medical procedure is the only criteria for ethical consideration, the physician and society have no obligatory ethical onus.

They’ve developed ethical and moral codes for their profession.  Surgeons can decline to operate and many often do for ethical and legal reasons.  

Quote:As soon as you say ethics should only rely on subjective opinion, you lose all ethical obligations between people. This includes, at the extreme, murder, since the perpetrator could justify any murder as somehow remedying a subjective threat...even when no objective evidence of threat exists.

Murder is unlawful but it’s still a man-made law.  Justice is a human concept.  Think of some of the things in our society that we consider immoral but were once legal, slavery, domestic violence, rape, child labor, etc.

There’s always consequences.  We have empathy and our very strong subjective feelings help to maintain ethical obligations.  If you don’t follow the rules, the majority will either kill you or punish you.

Haven’t you ever seen Terry Pratchett’s Hogfather—Death’s speech?  Big Grin
Reply
#15
Syne Offline
If everything is only relative and subject to personal whim, I cannot have any substantive discussion with you, as you have no standard to which I could hope to structure any hierarchy of agreement. And any argument I forward could be easily dismissed as not having a natural objective existence, even though the outcomes are certainly objective. That makes such debates pointless from the outset.
Reply
#16
Secular Sanity Offline
(Aug 23, 2016 09:25 PM)Syne Wrote: If everything is only relative and subject to personal whim, I cannot have any substantive discussion with you, as you have no standard to which I could hope to structure any hierarchy of agreement. And any argument I forward could be easily dismissed as not having a natural objective existence, even though the outcomes are certainly objective. That makes such debates pointless from the outset.

Agreed.  Let's use the term "logical" then.  That works for me. 

I have to go workout, though.  I'll see you later, Syne.
Reply
#17
Secular Sanity Offline
(Aug 23, 2016 05:47 PM)Bowser Wrote: I think about the case where a therapists poured drain cleaner in the eyes of a willing patient who felt she was meant to be blind.  To me that seems insane.  Or the guy who cut off his legs with a circular saw.  Those sound like mental illness to me.  

Syne didn’t want to discuss it, but earlier he mentioned the neural plasticity.  I was curious and it looks like some of the researches aren’t quite convinced that it is a neurological disorder. If it turned out to be psychological vs. neurological, I’d probably change my view.

Quote:He is, however, not yet convinced that a deficit in the right parietal lobe causes BIID. It’s also possible that a strong desire to amputate a limb could transform neural circuitry in a brain region responsible for body image, he says. “There’s a chicken-and-egg problem here.”

The limb that patients want amputated can change throughout their lifetime, First notes. “That can’t be explained by a cognitive mismapping [of the limb].”

Deeper insight into the causes of BIID could offer insight into how to treat the condition. Drugs that alleviate symptoms of obsessive compulsive disorders are one possibility worth testing, First says.

Yet many patients see an actual amputation as the best treatment possible. “I have never heard of them regretting it,” McGeoch says. “They’re always delighted.”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...ain-scans/

I was wondering, though, Bowser, if it turns out to be a neurological disorder, and amputation was medically accessible, would it be unreasonable as a prerequisite to have them sign a disability waiver disqualifying them from benefits?
Reply
#18
Syne Offline
(Aug 23, 2016 09:28 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Aug 23, 2016 09:25 PM)Syne Wrote: If everything is only relative and subject to personal whim, I cannot have any substantive discussion with you, as you have no standard to which I could hope to structure any hierarchy of agreement. And any argument I forward could be easily dismissed as not having a natural objective existence, even though the outcomes are certainly objective. That makes such debates pointless from the outset.

Agreed.  Let's use the term "logical" then.  That works for me. 

What is logical does not presume any kind of operational obligation...which is why ethics are more apropos. The only logical restriction on behavior is what can be done. You cannot begin to address the collective good of a society, and what would be reasonable to impose on individuals, unless you can make judgments logic alone just does not provide.

Logic says that, by pure numbers, society can impose any restrictions upon individuals it wishes...whether it's taxes, slavery, etc.. Logic says the strong rule the weak. Only ethics/morals give us any incentive to thwart this brutal reality.

But since ethical relativism holds that ethics are a product of societal norms, it does seem to cede judgment to reality. Again, in that case it is pointless to discuss what ought to be done, since this view surrenders any judgment to what is being done.
Reply
#19
Secular Sanity Offline
Well, don't go getting all nihilistic on me. Personally, I think that emotions play an important role in our survival.

We cannot again believe in certainty, will find no absolute, must indeed make sure we find no absolute, yet must somehow find heart to take up again a concern with what is good, with what is right and what is wrong.—Allen Wheelis

He's one of my favorite authors.
Reply
#20
Syne Offline
How do you reconcile wanting to use the term "logical" but then wanting to rely on emotion? Emotions are notoriously fickle and very poor ethical guidance.

It's not about certainty or absolutes...neither is achievable. What is achievable is consistency...the only leverage by which anything is truly knowable. Emotions do not lend themselves to consistency. IMO, it's an error to neglect the consistency that makes science possible just because we don't want to seem judgmental or proscriptive.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)