What's Wrong with This?

It seems that some people in China have been delivering pills made out of dead babies to South Korea:

Thousands of pills filled with powdered human flesh have been discovered by customs officials in South Korea, it was revealed today.

The capsules are in demand because they are viewed as being a medicinal 'cure-all'.

The grim trade is being run from China where corrupt medical staff are said to be tipping off medical companies when babies are aborted or delivered still-born.

The tiny corpses are then bought, stored in household refrigerators in homes of those involved in the trade before they are removed and taken to clinics where they are placed in medical drying microwaves.

Once the skin is tinder dry, it is pummelled into powder and then processed into capsules along with herbs to disguise the true ingredients from health investigators and customs officers.

Why does the article refer to this as “the sickening trade in using their corpses for purported medicinal purposes”? Is the outrage expressed simply a response to the fact that “the human flesh capsules contain super-bacteria and other harmful ingredients”? Or is it mainly because the capsules are made out of aborted (or left to die) human beings?

In the comments section yesterday, there was discussion about the idea that unborn humans don’t have rights because they are fundamentally different from us in the ways that matter. But the reaction to this article reveals the truth: fetal humans are members of the human family with us, and eating them is every bit the same kind of cannibalism as eating any other human.

What’s worse: killing them, or eating them? If eating them once they're dead with nothing to lose is an affront to their human dignity, then how much more so is killing them?

Perhaps this story will turn out to be false. Regardless, right now I'm more interested in the sincere reaction to it, which has been revulsion across the board. We still have a negative reaction to this story because we haven’t yet had reason to work on dulling our consciences by finding ways to justify this practice. But would people’s tune change if they actually believed that consuming dead babies would be beneficial to them? Would we not soon start hearing the same arguments for abortion made for this practice? Wouldn’t they twist my same logic in reverse, saying “If killing them through abortion is not an affront to their human dignity, how much less so is eating them once they’re dead?” Would those who opposed it not soon be called anti-science?

Our moral outrage is fickle when our own interests are at stake.

Comments

[Daron]

Hi Ben,

The problem is, you haven't pointed to any illogical or irrational beliefs I hold regarding this issue, much less one which, if corrected, would change how I feel. So your charge that I have these illogical or irrational beliefs appears quite unfounded.

Who's talking about you?
Are you personally repulsed by the pills? I think you already said you are not taking a position. Are you taking a moral stand now?

The problem is, you haven't pointed to any illogical or irrational beliefs I hold regarding this issue, much less one which, if corrected, would change how I feel.

If you are taking a moral stand against the pills and you are also taking a prochoice stand then I have pointed many times to the logical failure. If the fetus is just a mass of tissue, if it has no rights or moral significance, then none can be attached when we talk about ingesting it in pill form, as opposed to killing it in the womb or injecting it into the nervous system.

Also, I think you misunderstood what I said to SteveK. When I wrote that Christians have "no good reason to be disturbed," I'm underscoring the point that they don't need a reason to be disturbed. In fact, they could only ever even have such a reason in a derivative sense, i.e. having a reason to believe something which would prompt them (nonrationally) to feel one way or another.

That's not exactly so. You then went on to give a reason why they should not be disturbed ...

if only they appreciated the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to think God exists then they probably would not feel the way they do about abortion.

[Ben]

Daron,

You wrote:

If you are taking a moral stand against the pills and you are also taking a prochoice stand then I have pointed many times to the logical failure. If the fetus is just a mass of tissue, if it has no rights or moral significance, then none can be attached when we talk about ingesting it in pill form, as opposed to killing it in the womb or injecting it into the nervous system.

When you add the clause or moral significance you presume too much. One can believe that what we do to fetuses has moral significance without believing that the fetuses have rights or moral standing as persons.

That's not exactly so. You then went on to give a reason why they should not be disturbed

I gave a causal explanation. As I told SteveK in an earlier comment, when I speak of not needing a reason to feel one way or another, I am speaking of a reason in the sense of having a rational justification, which is not at all required for feelings (since they are not the sort of things which can be true or false, or anything along those lines).

Regards,
Ben

[KWM]

Ben,

>>One can believe that what we do to fetuses has moral significance without believing that the fetuses have rights or moral standing as persons.”

Please explain that moral significance you speak of above.

[Daron]

One can believe that what we do to fetuses has moral significance without believing that the fetuses have rights or moral standing as persons.

I guess one can. Please share that with me, if you contend that I am talking about you in the above comments.

I gave a causal explanation. As I told SteveK in an earlier comment, when I speak of not needing a reason to feel one way or another, I am speaking of a reason in the sense of having a rational justification, which is not at all required for feelings (since they are not the sort of things which can be true or false, or anything along those lines).

This is not relevant. People rarely justify their emotions. That does not mean the emotions are not logically following from premisses. And it does not mean that the emotions are not in conflict with other premisses. And it does not eliminate the fact that emotions do, in fact, have a rational basis. Nor does it eliminate the fact that you admit that with a proper world-view and understanding of supposed facts, you expect the emotions to change and reflect those facts.

[SteveK]

Ben,
What Daron said here is the point I am trying to make:

Nor does it eliminate the fact that you admit that with a proper world-view and understanding of supposed facts, you expect the emotions to change and reflect those facts.

Your rational mind says that it is *wrong* to experience fear for things that are not dangerous. But wrong in what sense?

Causally wrong? No, that doesn't make sense. Brute causality just *is* -- you cannot say that a certain causal chain of events was wrong. Brain activity is not wrong, it just happens.

Logically wrong? I'm suggesting that this is the only possible answer. Your mind is looking for a reason to justify the emotion and it sees no reason because your worldview doesn't provide one. The two are in conflict.

In my analogy the worldview that is "an army of paper cutouts" (and all that this entails) doesn't provide a reason to justify the fear you are experiencing. But everything requires a reason so your mind keeps looking for one.

Suppose you conclude that your emotions are out of place - meaning there is a brain problem, a chemical imbalance, etc - but the only way this can be true is if the problem goes beyond brute causality (see above comment about causality being wrong).

That leaves your worldview being the source of the problem. There's something out of place regarding your worldview such that a correction to it would now supply your mind with the reason necessary to justify the emotion.

But your worldview is a rational deliberation of your experiences. There's logic involved, and so there must be a problem associated with your logic. Hence, irrationality.

I'd be interested in hearing your comments on this, Ben, as I have not completely thought this all the way out. You too, Daron and KWH. Does this make sense or am I way off base?

[KWM]

SteveK,

I think you hit on some key points.

Your rational mind says that it is *wrong* to experience fear for things that are not dangerous. But wrong in what sense?

I’d say in the sense that the fear doesn’t match up to reality. A fear of a man with a gun chasing you (logical). A fear of clowns (illogical). One cannot simply say, “Yes, I fear clowns, I need no explanation – my own interpretation and my increased pulse are enough.”

Brain activity is not wrong, it just happens.

I’d say that not all “brain activity” is created equal. Ben must reconcile his moral-ness with regards to his emotional repulsion at the pills. He can’t escape by saying, “oh, I don’t need a reason to think cow manure smells bad.” There’s nothing morally wrong with loving the smell of cow manure. It's a brain activity with no moral significance.

Ben needs to address why the pills are different and what “moral significance” he’s placed on them (using his own words). He needs to explain the “moral significance” he as mentioned.