Significant Life

[Orlion]

I've chewed this over long enough, it's time to send it to the slaughterhouse and see what remains! I also promised Rus a fuller discussion on the topic here that did not necessarily touch directly on abortion. So, I figured I would talk about some basics here. First, the definition of life. I view something as living that can self replicate. Hence cells, plants, animals, can be called living or be said to have living parts incorporated into its being. At the same time, rocks, water, and other such inanimate objects do not self replicate. These objects are said to be non-living. An object is dead where the mechanism of self replication ceases. An object then, must have been living in order to become dead.

Now, there are different stages and complexities to life, from single celled to multi-cell, plant to animal, automatic to calculating. Because of this, it becomes imperative to make some more distinctions (possibly only to put us on a pedestal, we shall see). The only one I have made thus far are for the higher life forms, the ones that are multi-celled and calculating. These organisms I have said have "significant life." Their life is significant in that they possess a calculating capability. They can reason their way out of a problem. An example to differentiate: a single celled organism may run into a wall and may turn away as a reaction. It may find a way around, but there is just as much chance that it will not. An organism that is significantly alive will be able to observe a wall and try to formulate a solution. It may look and see the wall extends to an opening, it may see that it can climb over the wall. In any case, a significant living organism can assess an obstacle and look for multiple solutions.

Implications/Problems with the initial proposal:
1) If a soul exists, it would be said to be non-living in the traditional meaning of the word, since by tradition a soul can not self-replicate. If it could self-replicate, it is not certain that it would possess significant life, particularly if a developed brain is required for reason and memory.

2) It would appear that many if not all animals could be said to possess significant life. Ending an animal's life may, therefore, be on par with ending a human's life. This would make meat eating wrong, which would be viewed as absurd at the very least at the level of the animal kingdom, where some animals need to eat meat to survive. Is it then morally ok to end significant life? Under all or only some circumstances? Out of necessity and/or entertainment and/or a sense of obligation?

3) Some "humans" or human-type organisms can be viewed as not possessing significant life, such as those in a coma, fetuses, or some may viewed as possessing less significant life like the mentally retarded or animals. What obligations to seek to preserve these lives do we have? Is it moral to end an organism's life because it lacks or losses its significant life?

4) If a multicelluar organism is barren and unable to produce others of its kind through natural means, does this make that organism at least partially dead? Is it only living because it is made up of living parts (self-replicating cells and such)? Does having the ability to artificially reproduce lend the organism with some form of life, despite its natural barrenness, or does this only lend it "significant life"?

More to come soon. Thanks for reading, and I'm looking forward to the discussion!

[Fist and Faith]

I've posted this before. A conversation between Data (an android) and Dr. Crusher, from Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Data: <I>What is the definition of life?</I>

Crusher: <I>That is a BIG question. Why do you ask?</I>

Data: <I>I am searching for a definition that will allow me to test an hypotheses.</I>

Crusher: <I>Well, the broadest scientific definition might be that life is what enables plants and animals to consume food, derive energy from it, grow, adapt themselves to their surrounding, and reproduce.</I>

Data: <I>And you suggest that anything that exhibits these characteristics is considered alive.</I>

Crusher: <I>In general, yes.</I>

Data: <I>What about fire?</I>

Crusher: <I>Fire?</I>

Data: <I>Yes. It consumes fuel to produce energy. It grows. It creates offspring. By your definition, is it alive?</I>

Crusher: <I>Fire is a chemical reaction. You could use the same argument for growing crystals. But, obviously, we don't consider them alive.</I>

Data: <I>And what about me? I do not grow. I do not reprodue. Yet I am considered to be alive.</I>

Crusher: <I>That's true. But you are unique.</I>

Data: <I>Hm. I wonder if that is so.</I>

Crusher: <I>Data, if I may ask, what exactly are you getting at?</I>

Data: <I>I am curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Dr. Sung's laboratory and the next moment, when I became alive. What is it that endowed me with life?</I>

Crusher: <I>I remember Wesley asking me a similar question when he was little. And I tried desperately to give him an answer. But everything I said sounded inadequate. Then I realized that scientists and philosophers have been grappling with that question for centuries without coming to any conclusion.</I>

Data: <I>Are you saying the question cannot be answered?</I>

Crusher: <I>No. I think I'm saying that we struggle all our lives to answer it. That it's the struggle that is important. That's what helps us to define our place in the universe.</I>

3) Some "humans" or human-type organisms can be viewed as not possessing significant life, such as those in a coma, fetuses, or some may viewed as possessing less significant life like the mentally retarded or animals. What obligations to seek to preserve these lives do we have? Is it moral to end an organism's life because it lacks or losses its significant life?

The default position should be to not kill. I believe there's a time when an end to suffering is more important than continued life, but not everyone agrees, and I can't argue with them. And, as one who works direct care with the mentaly retarded, I can tell you that they are not less happy than we are.

4) If a multicelluar organism is barren and unable to produce others of its kind through natural means, does this make that organism at least partially dead? Is it only living because it is made up of living parts (self-replicating cells and such)? Does having the ability to artificially reproduce lend the organism with some form of life, despite its natural barrenness, or does this only lend it "significant life"?

I don't think an individual member of a species is less alive than any other member of the species just because the individual cannot reproduce.

[Avatar]

The problem is our definition of what is significant cannot be the same as somebody else's. I think your example about the mentally handicapped and Fist's comment is a case in point.

Oh, yeah, I guess we can't include being able to reproduce as a criteria for life...that would make anybody who was infertile dead.

--A

[hierachy]

Dust is alive.

The boundaries are not absolute... can only classify by trend.

[wayfriend]

I just want to but in to say that this question is a red herring. In the sense that, this question arises during the debate of certain other questions. It's a red herring because you are asked to go fetch an answer to something that can't be answered, but wasting your time trying, and attracting ridicule for your insufficient answers, is what it is all really about.

Here's my answer.

We choose which life to revere.

It's not a rational decision. It can't be based on classification and coefficients. It's a heart-made decision.

You can't explain why the idea of killing a horse for food is abhorent to some people, but those same people enjoy steaks and burgers. You can't explain why people spend free time rescuing stray dogs while people are starving. You can't explain why we want to keep a relative alive in a vegatative state. Not rationally.

But just because it's not rational doesn't mean we don't get to choose. We get to choose. We must get to choose. Because those choices define who we are and what we are about.

[Avatar]

Good post.

--A

[Avatar]

Good post.

--A

[Orlion]

I've been meaning to respond for some time, but I don't have too much time now... what I will say is that Wayfriend's post was epic. I never really thought of trying to define life as a red herring before... but it does make sense, as does the rest.

I, of course, will still seek for a rational... but that's just my choice and who I am Once again, epic post, definitely Facebook worthy

[rusmeister]

Depends what you mean by "significant" life.
To what extent are we to revere what life?
Why should the default position be not to kill?
On what basis "should" I anything?
The answers, if one has any, (and we usually do) spring from a worldview).

[Fist and Faith]

Exactly, rus. Same with so many things. What life is significant, or worthy? What love? What art?

[Avatar]

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

--A

[rusmeister]

E unus pluribum.
It ain't "diversity".
It's division, plain and simple.

[wayfriend]

If one isn't free to choose how one views the world, then why bother thinking? All of ethics is based on the premise that people choose.

[Vraith]

All of ethics is based on the premise that people choose.

First, your red herring post deserved the praise it got.

On this quote, I'll go a step further: significance itself is dependent on choice.
Every choice eliminated or taken away makes life less significant...and that's what ethics is really about: when and how we make decisions that, by definition, make some lives more, or less, significant than others.
This really doesn't make anything easier, though maybe clearer. [maybe].
Rationality/technology makes more significant life possible
Irrationality/creativity/relationships make significant life valuable.

[rusmeister]

If one isn't free to choose how one views the world, then why bother thinking? All of ethics is based on the premise that people choose.

But not that they choose what the nature of truth is. Only what they choose to do within the framework of what is true. Therefore, ethics should necessarily guide us to common conclusions, or else we cannot speak about what is ethical. If devil-worshippers (be the name Satan or Moloch or Tanit) think human sacrifice ethical - then obviously we cannot discuss ethics. They must first be disabused of their notions on the basis that killing to please God is wrong. We must assume a position that there is truth applicable to all - that truth is not merely personal opinion.

[wayfriend]

If one isn't free to choose how one views the world, then why bother thinking? All of ethics is based on the premise that people choose.

But not that they choose what the nature of truth is. Only what they choose to do within the framework of what is true.

Let me express the strongest disagreement with that sentiment. Not choosing the framework is abdicating more than half of one's responsibility. You become merely a factory worker on the assembly line of life, who either makes widgets well or poorly: no management skills required.

Even a person who wants to accept their framework from a divine source should do a background check before accepting it.

[rusmeister]

If one isn't free to choose how one views the world, then why bother thinking? All of ethics is based on the premise that people choose.

But not that they choose what the nature of truth is. Only what they choose to do within the framework of what is true.

Let me express the strongest disagreement with that sentiment. Not choosing the framework is abdicating more than half of one's responsibility. You become merely a factory worker on the assembly line of life, who either makes widgets well or poorly: no management skills required.

Even a person who wants to accept their framework from a divine source should do a background check before accepting it.

You may disagree. But then we can't discuss anything at all.
If we encountered each other in a competitive environment, we would have to see who was stronger in terms of force, for we could come to no understanding via reason. If your good is my evil and vice-versa, there can be no discussion. Only battle.

I quite agree on the "background check". When accepting a claim of divine source, as GKC said, it is not only a question of the source being right where I am right, but of it being right where I was wrong, and accepting, on the basis of experience and wisdom, that it knows more than I do.

What we should both want to do is to discover truth, and to demonstrate what could be demonstrated, and agree upon what can be agreed on. But once we have reached a conclusion, and are sure of it, there's nothing left to discuss. But as long as we are opening to hear each other, we can consider whether anything in our opponents' arguments that is just and true, and how that fits in with what we have hitherto believed, we can continue "the background checks" on our own beliefs. If we consistently find that the source - the authority - is right again and again - while we are occasionally wrong, it is only logical to admit that the source has a serious claim.

[Fist and Faith]

You may disagree. But then we can't discuss anything at all.

If we encountered each other in a competitive environment, we would have to see who was stronger in terms of force, for we could come to no understanding via reason. If your good is my evil and vice-versa, there can be no discussion. Only battle.

You're playing our song, rus.

[wayfriend]

I quite agree on the "background check".

As that is a form of freely choosing ones worldview, we seem to agree. So you don't have to beat me up.