*** Mod’s note: Split from thread on abortion (for link, see quote), as this addresses a far broader question ***
It is an inductive generalization that begins with our own direct, introspective awareness of our own consciousness, and subsumes other, similar creatures (such as other human beings). If you think that we have no way to know that a being is conscious, then on what basis do you say that any other people are rational, and therefore that they have rights? You have undercut your whole anti-abortion argument, because based on this reasoning, you could presumably reach the conclusion that murder is not wrong at all, not only as applied to fetuses, but to anyone.
However, as indicated above, there is plenty of objective evidence that they are in fact conscious. (Whether that consciousness is yet conceptual or not and whether or not that makes a difference is another question, but one that I suppose does not need to be addressed here, since it is apparently not within your range.)
AshRyan,
You said the fact that a fetus has not a consciousness is now inductively generalized. First: induction is not Logic. Logic does not deal with inductive reasonings b/c inductive reasoning’s conclusions do not strictly follow from the assumed premises. They may be ‘useful’ for heuristic purposes but it cannot be said that their conclusions are validly derived from the propositions operating as premises.
Now, try to validate induction in a non-circular way.
The problem here is some randians reluctance to confront seriously philosophical issues such as the problem of universals, causation and some more. Particularly, psychologism. States of mind are private, and so they will remain: that’s why you cannot prove whether a fetus, a chimp or a grown up individual has a consciousness or not. You don’t have to be a kantian to affirm this: you simply cannot ask for a demostratio of a fetus’ consciousness, since it’s a supra-empirical notion. You could certainly aim to describe the external characteristics of a fetus and predict its development. But you can’t, by no means, dig in his consciousness but in a hermeneutic way.
This problem arises as a result of somewhat blending an entirely deductive metaphysical system, such as Rand’s, with so-called “positive sciences”, which happen to be in the domain of empirical sciences.
When does life begins? When does consciousness arises? We don’t know. There is a continuum between life and death, between inanimated matter and self-conscious one. For example, scientists haven’t yet reached to an agreement as to whether viruses are living creatures or not.
The thing is that classifications are not intrinsically ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ But the notion of ‘human being’ -‘rational being’ or whatever be the case, is intrinsically prescriptive. These categories are not ‘true’ nor ‘false’ either. Biological categories are ‘better’ or ‘worse’ for specific purposes, such as understanding the similarities between hamsters and rats, both belonging to the same genus. But, moreover, the type of knowledge you are referring to is one not neccessarily true, as in the case of deductive derivation of conclusions from a given set of axioms. And just one little more thing: by no means can you derive an ‘ought’ from a ‘biological being.’
You must realize you are all heirs of Occam. And, paradoxically, simple answer to metaphysical issues in which universals are involved, such as ‘rationality’, ‘life’ and so forth are likely to be wrong.
We might culturally assume today that a one-month-old fetus is not a rational being. But, again, this does not strictly follow from Rand’s principles alone but in conjunction with an extra set of biological conjectures, which happen to be the result of years of scientific discovery and investigation. And scientific divergences do not arise from intellectual dishonesty, but of different interpretations of the world, non incompatible with the principles shared by the followers of different scientific communities. (Otherwise, communication between them should be fruitless.)
As regards different types of ‘Objectivism’ let me said that Ayn Rand’s texts still need to be interpreted by her followers. Differences of understanding may probably arise, as it has been the case. The very fact that communication is required for gaining a better understanding of the world as our knowledge expands, is the proof that knowledge is not objective, but inter-subjective.
I have a puzzle for those debating on this issue: if we are in the forest and see a moving thing which we can’t tell from the distance if it’s a living individual or a dangerous animal, should it be justified to shoot it?
Regards,
Ariel Reier
PS: Please forgive my modest English.