Jim

To be fair, the author didn't just talk about enjoying opera. His point was: You reduce this large spectrum of human activity to "enjoying opera." He makes a point which I've tried to make in the past and which is often ignored in this debate: "In the strict biological sense, human beings are animals too, but in the broader sense, human beings are much more than animals. The life of a man, woman, or child is worth far more than the life of a mouse, rat, dog, or monkey." This language speaks to the difference in kind, not degree, between humans and animals. He simply said that the life of a human is worth far more than that of a mouse, rat, dog or monkey. You are reducing what has value down to the most basic elements - not suffering, not dieing, freedom of movement, comfort, security. Humans and many animals want these things. This does not address the point that the loss of a human risks losing many high-value human experiences which are not shared with animals. Why is this linguistic sleight of hand? He clearly says that he does believe that humans have more value because they have more enriched experiences. If simplicity is a goal, it would be simpler to (i) recognize human beings, not animals, legally and morally as persons, (ii) define the taking of the life of a person without legal cause as murder, (iii) err on the side of protecting human life. This is an enforceable rule which protects the sanctity of human life. Having some sliding scale dependent on animals’ capabilities at a given age does not seem simpler than the status quo. It seems unworkable and would more likely lead to the diminution of the worth of human life… as is evidenced by your answer to the Child v. Chimp issue. Your approach of affording animals and humans equal moral (and legal?) status with respect to similar capacities draws an equivalency between biological capabilities and the non-biological high-value capabilities described. Animals have some enhanced biological capabilities relative to humans – strength, speed, sonar, etc. Perhaps they have an enhanced ability to feel pain relative to humans. However, the high-value capabilities you value, e.g. the “morally relevant” capabilities, are capabilities which are enhanced in humans. Why not just take the extra step and recognize that humans themselves have enchanced value and that we can get into trouble having a soft changing line when it comes to the question of what life human society will value. Please note that these arguments do not even require a transhuman POV.

Well, I've no doubt lived longer than you. I've italicized the part I don't really care about defending and bolded the part I have no hope of defending. I'm more interested in the substantive points made rather than going toe-to-toe with you in assessing the author's relative familiarity with Kant, Aristotle and the rest. I've learned to pick my battles more carefully. I've underlined the part that caused me to post the link. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you respond to this point as follows: I'm taking my kiddos to the movie this afternoon so I don't have time to respond right now in any kind of detail. Also, I'm having to think about your points. Beyond my obvious problem with the conclusions of your argument (e.g. sacrifice a child for a chimp), I have concerns about the practicality and desirability of judging the "morally relevant characteristics" on an individual by individual basis. I'm not sure this can be done or even if it should be attempted. Sometimes, you need bright lines, e.g. killing human beings (except for very narrow recognized exceptions such as war and self-defense) is murder. I wouldn't want to place this kind of principle on a sliding scale where the wrongness of the thing depends on particular "morally relevant" characteristics of the individual victim. I'll give this some more thought while I'm watching Superman and hope for an epiphany.

There seem to be two questions: 1. Is there a basis for drawing moral distinctions in the absence of a belief in God? 2. If we accept as a given that moral choices must be made, what is the basis for treating humans differently than animals? #1 I accept on faith. #2 requires more thought on my part. I agree that a distinction based solely on membership in a species is not valid although the term "speciesm" seems like a cheesy appeal to the baggage of racism. Although I couldn't find this full article, I tend to agree with the point made in this abstract:

That's my guess but I said "probably" because efforts of this type ramped up post 9/11. I did not say this required Patriot Act authorization. I suspect, but do not know, that there is now a systematic high tech program in place to crawl through such rooms.

Probably ever since 9/11. Regarding the legalities, most privacy cases have to do with whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. I'd have to do some research to see what the law is regarding various forms of chat communications. Surely there is no privacy expectation in a public chat forum. I'm not sure about IMs.

With help from Lebanese authorities:

Tulsa, Oklahoma. Friendly unpretentious solid people in the heart of the red states. Progressive by Oklahoma standards. Gentle hills to the north east, rolling plains to the southwest. OU football. My family and friends live here and this is where I've happened to build my life. Most places are what you make of them.

What should be done now to handle this problem?

Whether the speaker be Coulter, Kenedy or Durbin, the media and Internet make it more difficult to get by with outrageous statements. The hyperbole isn't left to percolate in a local group. It often rises to the top and gets vetted by the media so we know about more of the off the wall stuff. At least we get some basic fact checking.

Put this way, it almost seems chauvinistic or worse to oppose the war. I can't say it any better. This paragraph indicts anyone who would seize on Haditha or Abu Ghairb to tar the entire mission. We saw this in the recent debate about time tables. The dems who had voted for a timetable were left to disingenuously claims that their position had been supported by Gen. Casey. I only hope Hanson is right that they will hold off on Vietnam style funding cuts. I wish he were more eloquent and, in particular, I wish he had defined the conditions of victory differently. However, there is a firm courage to George Bush which is only underscored by his unpopularity. He understands that there is no choice but to finish what we started and all of the Sunday morning gas bags are not going to change his course. I have to shake my head at how seldom this view is expressed. I particularly agree with the value of making the Palestinian's responsible for their decisions. After the section of the article I quoted in the OP, Hanson concludes in part: This is the part that mystifies me. What is the source of the venom with which the war is treated both domestically and internationally? I can see how a parent whose child was risked, killed or injured might not think the effort worthwhile, but how can so many so easily dismiss the opportunity for freedom which is being handed to 26 million Iraqis and the entire Middle East? The world should again be thanking America for its sacrifice. I cannot account for the mindless venom.

No one in this thread has argued that we should limit criticism. Except for possibly the flag burning amendment and a desire to curb the despicable antics of Mr. Phelps, I am aware of no proposal by anyone in a position of power to limit criticism. What Hanson said was "too many have misdirected their anger at the very culture that produced and nourished them."

My bad. It was the Nazis that the ACLU fought for in Skokie.

No, it's not. I'll not judge what is the highest form of patriotism but a far higher form of patriotism than mere dissent would be defense of the right to dissent. While the right to dissent is beautiful, dissent itself comes in all forms. Dissent isn't always courageous, helpful or even interesting. Dissent can be moronic, hurtful and even racist. For example, the KKK once demonstrated in Skokie Ill because they dissented from racially neutral laws. This wasn't patriotism. What was patriotic was the ACLU's courage in defending that right all the way to the US supreme court. The ACLU's briefs in this appeal no doubt made clear that the ACLU deplored the KKK's dissent. It was the right of dissent which is precious and it is a strawman #1 to imply that Davis was questioning that right when he expressly stated the ". . . problem is not that the majority of Americans have voiced doubts about the future of Iraq — arguments over self-interest and values happen in every long war when the battlefield does not daily bring back good news." With the right to dissent comes responsibility and making extreme comments such as those mentioned by Davis is simply being mindless. There's nothing patriotic about going to such extremes. I note that you don't take him on though. Strawman #2: He didn't condemn the people; he condemned the "mere" excessive hyperbole. He expressly stated that he had no problem with the NYTs editorializing about government secrecy. His point was that it was irresponsible for the NYT to be "publishing sensitive, leaked material in a time of war." I don't see how you respond to that point. Strawman #3: I cannot see any portion of Davis' article that suggests that the ends justify the means.

As I read this article by my hero, Victor Davis Hanson, I felt the warm glow that only comes when someone extremely smart, knowledgable and articulate encapuslates what I've already been thinking. Wow. This is my position in a nutshell. I wanted to stand up and applaud when I read:

Is it appropriate for society to ban potentially dangerous and obnoxious conduct from public gathering places? Let's suppose that for reasons unknown a sizable minority of the public developed the habit imbibing freshly squeezed garbage juice. Not satisfied to drink this noxious brew in their own homes, the garbage drinkers want to come to public restaurants and drink it next to others. They argue that restaurant owners have the right to ban them from the premises but that drinking garbage juice only hurts themselves and that the majority should not be able to eliminate the choice. Non-drinkers don't have to come to restaurants which allow or serve garbage juice. It will take years to get hard science on the danger of second hand bacteria from the public consumption of garbage juice. This may sound flippant but I actually do not know what I think about this hypothetical.

I've been saying for years that a non-smoking bar would be a huge draw. My wife and I would like to go out for a drink but simply can't stomach the smoke.

Interesting. As some Christians may believe in God because it is comforting, socially advantageous or to hedge their bets against hell, you choose to believe human beings are important out of self-interest?

Yes, but who cares? The deed is done.

I completely agree Pangloss. Anyone spending 30 minutes scanning this opinion, the DC opinion, the transcript of the oral arguments and any of the briefs filed in the case would come away knowing that this was a legal issue on which reasonable minds can differ. Yes, the orientation/judicial philosophy of the Justices played a role in the outcome but this was a complex issue on which I would not even begin to opine. Literally hundreds of lawyers spend countless hours at a cost cetainly in the millions. At the end of the day it was a 5-3 decision which would have been 5-4 had Roberts not recused himself. I do not get how anyone could pretend this wasn't a highly complex case which could have fallen in either direction.

Have you read the dissenting opinions? What in them do you find to be "wacko-right?" I would be interested in your critique of the dissents. Better yet, how about showing me exactly where Judge Randolf, with then circuit judge John Roberts, were "wacko" in the DC Circuit court opinion. I haven't had time to digest the opinion but you should be very leary of any opinion formed on the basis of news reported within minutes and hours of the issuance of the opinion. If you feel very strongly about the case, you might review the transcript of the oral arguments.

I can't discuss an aggregate of programs so I threw out the NSA program as one specific example which I have researched to some degree and discussed in other threads. The first inclination of any politician is to defend his own power and prerogatives which explains why republicans are willing to buck a president with low approval ratings. This kind of contesting for power is exactly what the framers intended. As I said, I've not researched the particulars of these statements to know whether they were reasonable. I do not think we are nearly to the point that we have to worry about an imperial presidency. Congress is well able to express its views publically and go to court if necessary. Part of the difference in the perception of Bush's powers is that he views himself to be a wartime president. I am nervous about the nature of this "war" which really can have no end. However, rightly or wrongly, Bush has acted consistently in that manner and his motivations are not a mystery.