The Metaphysical Error

[Dominique]

This is sort of informal, but it's the first comprehensive article I've been able to formulate without appeals to outside sources (except that it refers to the press release issued by Rudolph-the Olympic bomber) and I wanted to check the soundness of my argument and get some feedback here. Thanks in advance for any input.

I was thinking about that statement by Rudolph all evening, and about the deadly disaster of the mind-body dichotomy.

The crucial difference in philosophies goes back to Plato and Aristotle. It is a difference between grounding both mind and body in (this world) reality, or separating concepts, the products of man's mind, into another *spiritual* realm. In this latter view, all knowledge is (somehow) imparted to man by either divine revelation or intuition. In the former, knowledge is a process built on logic, derived from perceptual concretes.

This belief in the spiritual realm, of gaining knowledge from unknowable sources, divorces reason from reality. It divorces man from himself-splits him in two and puts him in a constant battle with himself. He must choose to indulge his body, at the expense of his mind; or indulge his mind, at the expense of body (or earthly life). This is a false dichotomy.

Man, to function, must use his mind and his body (i.e. perceptual awareness). He must constantly check the contents of his mind-his ideas-against the facts of reality as evidenced by the means of his 5 senses. If he rejects this method, he rejects reality, and there is no way to check a bad premise, except against the non-evidence of an unknown entity's likes or dislikes. This is no way to create a moral code.

Evidenced is the fact that Rudolph has taken an extraordinary effort to logically apply the Catholic ideals to reality, and has hence become one of America's top ten Most Wanted and a serial bomber. Not to mention the scores of other massacres and murders from the Crusades to the individual murders of people the church decries as *immoral*.

In it's greatest hypocrisy, the pro-life movement is-as Rudolph demonstrates-at best a bunch of (as Rudolph himself calls them) "liars, hypocrites and cowards" and at worst they are murderers like himself.

Rudolph honestly believes that a woman should be a slave to the processes of her body, that fetuses are *persons* and have *rights* granted by God. His basis for this is all other-worldly. In reality there can be no reason that a grown *actual* person should have it's rights removed entirely by the growth of a *potential* person. What is it about the fetus that grants it rights superior to those enjoyed by adults? There is no <em>right to live at the expense of the mother</em>, by the fact that it needs the mothers body to grow into an *actual person*.

Personhood in reality does not exist until birth. At that point the infant is still unable to conceptualize, but it is, at that point, an independent entity, capable of performing all bodily functions independently, and becomes entitled to the right of life by virtue of the fact that it can maintain it independently. Arguments about the point of viability are open to debate, but are still the choice of the mother so long as it involves her body.

The right to life involves the right to control the processes of your own body. If a person cannot independantly operate the functions of their own body, there is no *right* guaranteeing them the use of another's body. That people offer blood and organs for transplant is evidence of benevolence, made possible by the right to choose. Imagine if kidney donations became mandatory. The issue would be clear then. Why then is it different from the issue of abortion, which in the majority of cases is between a bit of protoplasm without even the most fundamental aspects of *personhood* and a fully grown recognized person?

This is because in the religious, *spiritual* view-personhood is characterized by an *essence* which is *supernatural* (i.e. not natural) and which God has imparted for a <em>purpose</em> within the body of the woman. This is called the soul. This ghost like essence is capable of understanding, and of pain, and contradicts everything known about the human body in science (but that is ok because it is defined as not natural and hence *unknowable*). To a Christian, abortion is a rejection of God's will, and that is a supreme sin. Not to mention that it is classified as murder because of this *God given* personhood.

With no referents in reality, this view cannot be validated. It involves a *leap of faith*-which means a belief in something without any evidence of it's truth or falsity. It ignores the things known about woman, and their most fundamental right to their own life, and gives supremacy to this un-validated, leap of faith belief in a ghost like essence inparted from an unknowable source (God). Nothing could be more cruel and unusual.

By basing your method of cognition outside of reality, everything you *know* has no foundation is the facts of this world. They are floating abstractions, and provide nothing but a confusing bout of contradiction as a guide to proper action. It is no wonder that people like Rudolph emerge as products of this flawed epistemology.

If you take nothing else away with you from this article, at least take time to consider the logical progression of thought that you use to make your everyday decisions. What are they based on? In other words:

Check your premises

[Capitalism Forever]

Evidenced is the fact that Rudolph has taken an extraordinary effort to logically apply the Catholic ideals to reality, and has hence become one of America's top ten Most Wanted and a serial bomber. Not to mention the scores of other massacres and murders from the Crusades to the individual murders of people the church decries as *immoral*.

A stylistic remark here: The context switch between these two sentences (from Rudolph to the Crusades etc.) is rather abrupt; you should provide some cue that helps the reader's mind make the transition, somehow like this: "... And he is not the only example of how Catholic ideals can lead to murder--witness the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the..."

(BTW, I'm not sure about the moral status of the Crusades; after all, they were fighting against Islam ... although at that time Christianity was just about as bad as Islam.)

What is it about the fetus that grants it rights superior to those enjoyed by adults?

I think the anti-abortion argument is that the fetus has rights equal to that of the mother, so they might dismiss this as a straw man. To which you would reply,

There is no <em>right to live at the expense of the mother</em>

which they would counter by pointing out that children live at the expense of their parents too. So your winning argument is not the above, but what you write in the next paragraph:

Personhood in reality does not exist until birth.

The crucial question--the one that decides the argument--is when personhood begins, i.e. when the developing human starts having rights. So you end up at the right place, explaining how the mind-body split leads to an incorrect answer to this decisive question. I just thought I'd tell you that you can cut off the above little detour.

My response wouldn't be complete without reporting the spell check results:

At that point the infant is still unable to conceptualize, but it is, at that point, an independent entity

[...]If a person cannot independantly operate the functions of their own body

which God has imparted for a <em>purpose</em> within the body of the woman.

[...]this un-validated, leap of faith belief in a ghost like essence inparted from an unknowable source (God).

[Dominique]

A stylistic remark here: The context switch between these two sentences (from Rudolph to the Crusades etc.) is rather abrupt; you should provide some cue that helps the reader's mind make the transition, somehow like this: "... And he is not the only example of how Catholic ideals can lead to murder--witness the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the..."

Ah, ok good, I see.

(BTW, I'm not sure about the moral status of the Crusades; after all, they were fighting against Islam ... although at that time Christianity was just about as bad as Islam.)

Hmm, that's an interesting point. Might be a good thread topic. Is it a thread somewhere already? I'll have to research it.

I just thought I'd tell you that you can cut off the above little detour.

So you think I should take those two lines (paragraphs?) completely out?

My response wouldn't be complete without reporting the spell check results:

OY! I thought I had gotten all those.

Thank you soo much! That was very helpful! I really appreciate your taking the time to give me some thoughtful feedback. You're awesome

I'm hoping to get some more essay/articles going pretty soon, now that I'm finally getting some level of integration with these concepts.

Want to sign on as full time Editor-in-Chief?

[Dominique]

Oh Also, is it proper to refer to "the Inquisition"? Weren't there several?

[EC]

Very good essay! I think I'm starting to come around on this abortion issue. One criticism though, I've never in my life been religous nor have I ever been swayed by any religous arguments but I have always been "pro-life", so I have always found it very strange to say the least when people of a pro-choice persuasion always try and negate religous arguments when attacking the "pro-life" position. I would have countered with some of the same things CF said in his post which have nothing to do with religion. The point being I almost think the religous version of the "pro-life" stance should just be ignored for the nonsense it is while writing a pro-choice essay, and only the rational arguments for the pro-life side should be addressed.

That said, I've reread some of Peikoff's essay's on the subject and now yours and I now accept that under certain circumstances abortion can be justified as it is never right for the government to dictate a persons life, but (Butt-monkey ) I still find late-term abortions to be disgusting and immoral and I would hope any woman would think through what actually happens before they have one.

[Dominique]

The point being I almost think the religous version of the "pro-life" stance should just be ignored for the nonsense it is while writing a pro-choice essay, and only the rational arguments for the pro-life side should be addressed.

Thanks for the feedback Eric!

I understand what you are saying. Actually though the focus of this essay is less about abortion and more about the underlying premise which led to Rudolph's series of bombings (This has been posted on my site and you can follow the link there to the actual transcripts of his press release which this is a response to). You should read it, it's very chilling, because he's actually intelligent and logical. He followed his moral code to the best of his ability, and it led him down that road. It really demonstrates the importance of having the right premise, and the importance of ideas.

I'm in the mind-body dichotomy section of OPAR so I'll probably try to write a couple more things about that which are more general and not so geared to religion.

That said, I've reread some of Peikoff's essay's on the subject and now yours and I now accept that under certain circumstances abortion can be justified as it is never right for the government to dictate a persons life, but (Butt-monkey ) I still find late-term abortions to be disgusting and immoral and I would hope any woman would think through what actually happens before they have one.

We should probably talk about this furthur in another thread or through PM. It looks as though you still have some emotional attachment here and it could be a problem for you down the line. (because it's an important premise that you haven't integrated) I know you said you accept the basics, but it's deeper than just that the government doesn't have the right. It's up to you, but if you want to talk about it, I'm certainly up for it.

Question though:

but (Butt-monkey )

wtf?----> ?

I got another kind of monkey for you

[edited to switch links]

Edited April 17, 2005 by Dominique

[Capitalism Forever]

Hmm, that's an interesting point. Might be a good thread topic. Is it a thread somewhere already?

Not yet, as far as I know.

So you think I should take those two lines (paragraphs?) completely out?

I'd settle for two sentences. You could leave as it is as far as "...have it's rights removed entirely by the growth of a *potential* person"--and perhaps insert a remark here about how this distinction between the potential and the actual eludes the intrinsicists.

Thank you soo much! That was very helpful! I really appreciate your taking the time to give me some thoughtful feedback. You're awesome 

Glad to be of value to you.

BTW, I had not made the connection between Christian metaphysics and opposition to abortion before; it was your essay that helped me recognize it. So you're awesome too!

I'm hoping to get some more essay/articles going pretty soon, now that I'm finally getting some level of integration with these concepts.

Want to sign on as full time Editor-in-Chief? 

Well, I'm busy writing software most of the time, so I can't make any guarantees, but I'll sure be happy to review an essay from you every now and then. (Who knows what else I might learn from you!)

[Capitalism Forever]

Oh Also, is it proper to refer to "the Inquisition"? Weren't there several?

As far as I know, it was a centralized institution within the R.C. Church, with national and local branches directed from Rome.

(Waiting for AqAd to correct me ...)