Hmmm... I cannot say I agree or disagree but if we're going to figure out how to use science to do the things you have listed, which apply to humankind, don't we first need to understand the science of humankind? How can we use science through the protection of human rights when most of us don't have a clue as to the what and why we humans have created a perception of rights to begin with?

You may want to describe better what you are asking us to invalidate.

Its core principle is;

The use of science to;

1. eliminate involuntary suffering
2. maximize voluntary happiness
3. eliminate involuntary death

(through the protection of human rights)

there are three things to invalidate (at least);

1. that there should be a prime ethical directive by which we test the rationale for public policy

2. that the validity of a prime ethical directive should be openly debated and testable

3. that the current ethical directive I propose is valid - that it defines universal human desires as they can be observed

Abolitionism is a normative ethic meant to apply to public policy. It is a core ethical principle used to evaluate rationales which are used to create public policy. Its core principle is;

The use of science to;

1. eliminate involuntary suffering
2. maximize voluntary happiness
3. eliminate involuntary death

(through the protection of human rights)

----------------

Please post your criticism as well as support - please include your rationale either way.

I will give $300 through paypal to the person who can invalidate this directive using a logical rationale.:a-ok:

(unqualified opinions won't work)

Sean Henderson

I've gone through the basics and definition of the linked site and this all sounds well and good (except the 'reward' portion <ugh>). But I am curious as to one aspect: You say "the use of science" to achieve these worthy goals. Does the abolitionist directive mean to say that 'science' is the key to these ends? Or perhaps is it only saying that it happens to be concerned with the scientific aspect.

I'm also a little curious as to the wording: When I say I want to 'eliminate involuntary suffering' there's a rather explicit message there that I'm not concerned with 'voluntary' suffering. As silly as this sounds, I find that carefully-chosen words are often so for very specific reasons. What say ye on 'voluntary' suffering? :p

... same thing for 'voluntary happiness'. "Voluntary" was put there on purpose (at least that's what I'm guessing)... so "damn those inflicting unwanted happiness?" Perhaps there's nothing here but word-modifiers that don't mean anything; but if not, could you elaborate?

Thanks, we look forward to your replies

Ill give half a dozen eggs through the post if any one can prove that happiness is voluntary..Oh im so happy..Only insignificant unprofessional opinions will count.

Just out of curiosity, is this a hierarchy, or is it in no particular order?

Look, I'm all for human rights and I'm all for these principles, and I've spent many months of my life practicing medicine in developing countries (Gambia, Senegal, Ghana, Burkina Faso, and the Peruvian Amazon).

But I know through practical experience that these principles:

1) WILL inevitably come into conflict with one another and you have not offered some kind of arbitration (for example when suffering is so great that life is worse than death)

2) there may be more important principles that you have left out (for example most people will choose autonomy over happiness)

3) You do not make allowances for situations in which science should keep its hands off -- because disrupting equilibrium can make things worse

4) You do not account for chaos, i.e. the inevitability that complex systems cannot be completely understood. And thus, science will ALWAYS be applied with some degree of uncertainty.

5) Science cannot advance and be reapplied nearly as quickly as conditions change. You have not mentioned how science will accomodate change in the world.

6) You do not take into account cost-effectiveness, i.e. the issue that the most effective interventions may be the least scientific -- a whole lot of lives could be saved just from maintaining roads

7) A lot of great scientific advances have come about because of a mountain of earlier research that never anticipated some kind of practical application. The pursuit of "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" in science is necessary -- because that is what allows us to make unanticipated discoveries.

My point is, when you're presenting a few very vague but indisputable "good" principles, you're not exactly stringing together something amenable to a refutation. I mean everyone who isn't a sociopath agrees with these things.

But are you proposing a philosophy or are you proposing a plan of action? Everyone from UNICEF to the World Bank to the Gates Foundation to Medicins sans Frontiers believes in these things.

Furthermore, I'm not even clear if you're concentrating on a humanitarian ideal or rather a scientific ideal.

The problem with making this a scientific ideal is that everything from public health up to multivisceral organ transplantation will save lives, improve people's pursuit of happiness, and limit suffering. But science exists in a world with great social and economic asymmetries, with limited resources, and with ethical constraints. You can't do everything.

The real question for you to answer is "what next?" If you can give a good answer to that, then you deserve to keep your $300.

:flowers:

I'm not interested in a challenge for your money. You said in your intro thread that you're a student. Keep your money.

I'm puzzled by this challenge, though. I mean you're not saying anything new at all, these debates about codification of human rights have been happening in various forms at least since Nuremberg (if not before -- certainly the European abolitionist movements in the 18th and early 19th century made arguments for human rights).

Furthermore, every ethical philosopher from Plato through Kant and Mill had what you phrase a "prime ethical directive". And in the case of Aristotle, Mill, and other consequentialist philosophers, the ethical directive was based on outcomes (much like you mention).

You fall into a trap by promoting an ethics-justified science, but then asking that the ethical directive be testable. Unless this is scientifically testable, then what's the point? I mean we can get things right in our heads but be very very wrong in the world.

Yet for a "prime ethical directive" to be scientifically testable, you need to find ways to cross-culturally and uniformly define, quantify, and prioritize your outcome measures. The more specific you are, the more powerful this could be; but the more specific you are, the more absolutely impossible it will be for you to generalize. I mean how on earth can you say what happiness and suffering mean to every individual on earth?

Finally, why would you challenge us to invalidate fairly self-evident, almost banal statements of good things for humanity (like avoidance of suffering)? Whom do you expect to actually invalidate it? Your conception of ethics, just like mine, is idealistic and it is empathetic. And that means you're just not going to be open to cold existential arguments that seem to dismiss the importance of anything.

So I commend you highly for your attitude towards humanity, which I share. I wish you would concentrate your efforts on 1) identification of problems, 2) identification of solutions, and 3) identification of assessment tools to see how your solutions might work. THIS is how you make the world a better place.

Just out of curiosity, is this a hierarchy, or is it in no particular order?

I will address any example you give. In this case : it should be the right of the individual to end their life if they choose.

that would be considered their attempt at voluntary happiness

science is used to measure equilibrium

economics is also a science but we can't predict the future economically, if a proposal is cheaper and just as good why wouldn't we choose to implement it?

excellent, that's the idea - to create a universal principle that is used to evaluate public policy. If you could refute it, then it wouldn't be universal.

Furthermore, I'm not even clear if you're concentrating on a humanitarian ideal or rather a scientific ideal.

why does that need to be clear to determine if the directive is valid for the purpose of determining the validity of public policy?

The real question for you to answer is "what next?" If you can give a good answer to that, then you deserve to keep your $300.

why is that the real question?

Some important recommendations are : mandatory pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to eliminate known bad genes

That addresses autonomy, which is NOT one of your three principles. Why not?

Furthermore, your whole pretext is that this is about public policy. What about public policy allows you to of necessity come to this bizarre answer? We're talking about public policies in which various "good" choices come into conflict. Examples hardly matter unless you actually believe that it is impossible for these to come into conflict.

You also glaringly miss a HUGE principle which is the FIRST principle of medical ethics:

Primum non nocere, aka do no harm.

In the absence of some way to reign in chaos, you risk great harm by implementing large scale public policies. And your FIRST principle should be to not cause harm.

Autonomy and happiness are not synonyms, not by any stretch. As Satan said in Paradise Lost, "Tis better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."

That's sheer nonsense. I mean the majority of scientific research, from climatology to evolution to astronomy is the study of major changes. Where do you get your ideas about science??? I'm sorry, but if you really believe that science is used to measure equilibrium, then I find it hard to entertain any other contention you make about science.

That's aside from the fact that you shirked my point. Building the Aswan Dam -- a GREAT idea to secure drinking water, irrigation, and energy for Egypt. Of course there is now epidemic malaria and schistosomiasis as a result. That's what can happen when you disrupt equilibrium.

We should. But you left out of your trinity of principles any way to arbitrate, that's why I asked.

Why this obsession with refutation? Refutation is a rhetorical game, and absence of refutation is not any kind of validation. Propose an intervention and then validate it through demonstration. If you want something to be beyond refutation, then you can propose something utterly vague -- like a committment to "world peace", or "happiness".

The directive is useless for public policy, because it's generic and vague. But it DOES have value as a scientific directive, because it can alter the flow of funding and operational support.

Because you don't actually say anything with your principles. Everyone agrees. So what next? I completely agree with your first principles. And I can tell you how I used them today, for instance -- I run a pediatric HIV clinic, and I had about 8 kids with AIDS that I saw. Sure those humanitarian principles were somewhere in the back of my mind, but it doesn't matter -- there are real problems with real solutions in front of us, and spending time dwelling on feel-good generalities doesn't actually accomplish anything.

PRE-IMPLANTATION?!?!? So you're saying that EVERY PREGNANCY should be in a test tube????

Oh boy...

Because you don't actually say anything with your principles. Everyone agrees. So what next? I completely agree with your first principles. And I can tell you how I used them today, for instance -- I run a pediatric HIV clinic, and I had about 8 kids with AIDS that I saw. Sure those humanitarian principles were somewhere in the back of my mind, but it doesn't matter -- there are real problems with real solutions in front of us, and spending time dwelling on feel-good generalities doesn't actually accomplish anything.

then why are you debating on a philosophy forum, obviously debating has value and people look to examples perceived as strong for guidance

ultimately the real goal to accomplish is to install the ethic and actually have it guide public policy - sure there are humanitarian institutions but governments as a whole have a very different ethical directive (nationalistic power is one of them)

most governments on this earth are determined through the whims of dictators, just like America, the UK, and much of Europe - not to mention the 3rd world countries

why do you think they need medics like you over there?

because the government does not care about universal human rights

I find your post offense - it seems like an attempt to devalue out of frustration or a sense of repulsion at something you don't like

did the Aswan Dam builders know what would happen or did anyone think it would?

I did ask for validation as well. Do you understand that the purpose of creating a prime ethical directive is to create something universal which cannot be refuted? If no one can refute it, then it will appear to be more acceptable and thus hopefully implemented.

We should always debate the rationale for determining rights and public policy. Public policy is very real, though not immediately gratifying to work with.

who said anything about test tubes?, only screening before implantation - implantation is widely used in pregnancies within a womb.

I'm not debating you, because I don't disagree with your general principles. We're discussing this. I don't think your principles will fall in a debate, but I don't think it matters either -- they're just too removed from policy decisions.

What you're missing is that you can rationalize ANYTHING as intended to increase human happiness. Including starting a war in Iraq, right? A means to an end of spreading democracy through that oppressed region. Deposing a brutal dictator. Vanquishing his weapons of mass destruction programs. Etc. Sure, it's all crap, but I think the Bush administration deep down thought that they were going to make the world a better place.

That's FAR from the truth. The problem is one of resources. Senegal and Ghana have about as good, noble, and honest governments as you'll find anywhere in the developing world, and Gambia while imperfect partners closely with aid organizations and medical research.

I share your values. I just find them too vague to guide or even inspire policy. The only thing that repulses me is the idea that public policy can start with philosophical principles rather than careful study of problems.

Yes, but not the people who made the policies.

I do understand. But the problem is that public policy is almost never based on prime ethical directives, because it's pragmatics that determine what we do. If prime ethical directives were important to public policy, then we would have intervened in Darfur years ago, and the Rwandan genocide would have never happened.

I know -- I'm on one national policy committee and several institutional committees, I understand. But determining the principles is easy. What you do with them as hard. I'm sure Heinrich Himmler believed that the SS campaign was one of happiness and minimization of suffering, as his quotes would indicate. And in fact the Nazis claimed a scientific basis. But on the other hand, they restricted this principle to "aryan" people and butchered 11-15 million non-"aryans". My point, in other words, is that it is possible to hold your 'directive' and not do any good with it if your downstream policies and decisions are barbaric, ignorant, or blind to reality.

There's something you're not understanding here. Implantation occurs within a few days of conception. Not only does no one knows that they are pregnant at this point, but there is also no way to do genetic screening at this stage without an extremely high risk of pregnancy loss.

Pre-implantation screening is only done with in vitro fertilization, i.e. when you already have an early embryo in a test tube. That's why I'm befuddled by the proposal to screen ALL pregnancies before implantation.

I do understand. But the problem is that public policy is almost never based on prime ethical directives, because it's pragmatics that determine what we do. If prime ethical directives were important to public policy, then we would have intervened in Darfur years ago, and the Rwandan genocide would have never happened.

if that's the case you should be promoting the Abolitionist ethical directive

and what am I missing about that? I'm saying the means are open to debate.

What is far from the truth? That many countries do not use the ethical directive in practice?

You can't define problems without defining your values. Too vague to guide or inspire - how do you qualify this?

No, you were repulsed over your assumption that I thought humans should be grown in test tubes

spare me the association with Nazis - that's a shameful tactic.

preimplantation genetic diagnosis and invitro fertilization are already in use at many clinics successfully. It is used to screen for known genetic diseases : to weed out embryos with known bad genes.

why does that befuddle you that embryos are tested in a test tube before being implanted in the womb?

how do you define what is practical?

I promote similar principles. But there is nothing about them that's proprietary to your group or your web page that makes me need to invoke them as such.

So in other words, the principles don't matter -- it's the debate that does. I agree. Everyone will swing their argument to be humanitarian.

No, that the problems in the developing world are because their leaders don't care about human rights. Most leaders DO care about that. That doesn't mean they have the power to do anything about it, though, when the interest payments on their national debt exceeds their gross domestic product, when their countries have female literacy rates of 15% and child mortality rates of 30%, when 1/3 of their health care budget is spent treating child malaria, when physical strength and cognitive development among the entire national population is diminished by repeated and chronic infectious diseases and nutritional deficiencies... These problems take resources to fight. I met Jeffrey Sachs once a year or two ago, and he was of the opinion that interventions in these public health problems will not be self-sustaining for generations -- there needs to be essentially a semi-permanent commitment from outside poor countries to intervene in their public health problems. But how is that going to happen when we can barely get our own sh!t together?

I share your values. I just find them too vague to guide or even inspire policy. The only thing that repulses me is the idea that public policy can start with philosophical principles rather than careful study of problems.

most people who are actually going out and helping people are doing so without having articulated ethical first principles. This stuff about minimizing suffering is self-evident to empathetic humans, and humans are innately empathetic. That doesn't mean that empathy predominates in all people's behavior, but no inspirational directive from the 2009 Abolitionists is going to change that.

I'm not repulsed by that. It just makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. Preimplantation screening of all pregnancies... well, that means that all pregnancies need to be started in vitro. Either this is what you mean, or you don't know anything about implantation.

Spare me the "shame". Aside from a vagary like "public debate", you NEED to respond to the notion that even genocidaires can THINK they're following your "directive".

what exactly is your prime directive?

this post is asking for a challenge, if you don't want to give it, go elsewhere but don't complain that it's beneathe you and still debate

Aedes wrote:

Everyone will swing their argument to be humanitarian.

That's your conclusion, if you can put forth your rationale I could debate that conclusion.

If you share my values then they aren't too vague for you.

I think you just don't like the idea of a banner above your head and want to think of yourself and an individual and not subject to the laws of an ethical directive- but i could be wrong.

if they choose their suffering via informed consent it isn't a problem.

Just like we try to keep people from killing themselves - it's unethical.

is that true? is human empathy inherently ethical

there are many instances where empathy goes against rights

those who have the most power are also the least empathetic- there was a recent study that suggests this though it's hard to quantify

yes invitro fertilization and then consequent implantation in a womb, please, you already posted a repulsed comment to that, now you're trying to backtrack

to try to win an argument by loosing assocating someone with Nazis is not a good debate tactic and should be discouraged

public debate is real and necessary, if you don't think so , why aren't you out there doing something?

genocide is not sanctioned by the ethical directive, it's plain and clear that the elimination of involuntary death and suffering goes against genocide

are you jewish by any chance?

I don't need to operate from a "prime directive", because I think it's superfluous. All ethics stems from empathy, which is demonstrably innate to our psychology, and empathy is simply the recognition of ourselves in other people. That is primary -- contrived declarations about happiness and suffering are secondary.

I'm challenging the whole notion that you've offered anything worth challenging. Your prime directive is simple, banal, and a statement of the obvious. It seems grandiose to you, but you've got a bit of hubris.

As Bob Dylan said, "But I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."

This is debatable? Why do you think Bush talked about liberating Iraq and Iraqis celebrating in the street, rather than talking about going out to kill people and secure oil wealth?

Ok, maybe I DON'T share your values if you think you actually can solve the world's problems with wistful slogans about suffering.

A picayune issue. And helping people who feel like killing themselves is definitely ethical.

You have your understanding backwards. Ethics is inherently human. Ethics arises from a human impulse to care about others, namely empathy.

Presidents and prime ministers are not the ones in the labs making vaccines, they're not the ones digging wells, and they're not the ones teaching girls to read. Humanitarian work is very much a bottom-up process except when major political asymmetries like war come into the picture.

No, you have this dystopic idea that ALL pregnancies can be genetically studied pre-implantation. Tell me exactly how you will genetically screen ALL pregnancies pre-implantation when people don't even know they're pregnant until weeks after implantation has already happened. Please explain this one to me.

It didn't have to be the Nazis. It could have been the Interahamwe. It could have been the Bolsheviks. It could have been King Leopold II. Whatever. Another poor debate tactic is whining about debate tactics. And I'm not debating you, I'm just asking you to clarify things.

I am doing something. :brickwall: I do this professionally. Public debate is necessary at an operational level -- and seldom does it come down to ethical directives, as opposed to pragmatics.

Yes, to a reasonable human it is. But an unreasonable human can rationalize anything to be consistent with yours or any other ethical directive.

rights are not inherently protected by empathy

you should know this

Actually, you could define it more clearly as a refutation by saying that we don't need debatable ethical directives

you'll have to define that Bob Dylan quote, in present form it's usage is too vague to debate

[SIZE="2"]In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand
At the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy
In the instant that I preach
My pathway led by confusion boats
Mutiny from stern to bow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.[/SIZE]

Bush's manipulation of ethics would not fly with the Abolitionist ethical directive, you can't liberate people from their right to live

yes, I do think that ethical directives are necessary and have an effect, have you studied the history of ethical thinking? take a look at the impact of utilitarianism for instance.

yes I agree that ethics come from human nature, however in a society we have laws and ethical directives to provide testable and objective validations for behavior, do you think we should abolish this practice?

do you think that you can justify laws using empathy within a legal rational authority?

why is helping people kill themselves voluntarily unethical? what is your testable rationale for this?

that is a separate issue let's keep on topic here, we are debating the validity or soundness of the Abolitionist ethical directive

I'm happy to tell you elsewhere

are you doing this as a profession? you aren't acting with an association or getting paid, you are doing it on your own time

ethical directives determine what is considered practical, do you work with public policy?

for laws and actions that effects the rights of others, you must present a testable rationale and a means to test that rationale

OK all, contest is over. The $300 that was originally available is no longer available because it's being paid to me for time in editing... Just KIDDING!

I will however say that posts need to be correctly formatted and easily referred to and read. PLEASE take the time to quote properly and formally on this forum as made above in the examples.

Kind Regards,

The Formatting Nazi

Let me get this straight. Are looking for a set of axioms by which acceptable public policy can be implemented? It seems to me that what you want is a set of axioms loose enough to be adaptable to public will but tight enough to avoid trampling human rights. If the objective is to eliminate involuntary suffering, I wonder what you plan to do about a situation like this: A man's son was murdered, he suffers from this action that was outside of his control, and suffers from an unfulfilled desire for vengeance;he wishes to kill the son of the man who murdered his son. now clearly this would violate the axiom of involuntary death, but this seems to be in conflict with the necessity to relieve involuntary suffering. How would you respond to this?

Now, we may be able to create a drug cocktail which by some method either removes the memory of his son or makes him not feel bad about the event, but what if he refuses? Can we force him to take the drug cocktail, being justified by the fact that he will not suffer from it by virtue of the cocktail? Should we consequently disallow forced anti suffering measures?

I think that the best way to play this game is to try to create situations which operate outside of and force contradictions in your system. I like to do this and will be happy to do so to the best of my ability. It is much easier to find a problem with a set of axioms than to find a set of axioms that has no explicit problems....of course the problems aren't in the axioms or the logic but in the outcome, so you are necessarily suggesting social experimentation right?