tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post6998584985445341059..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Four grades of normative actualityAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-19153515026905479792018-01-15T00:06:58.445-06:002018-01-15T00:06:58.445-06:00Helen,
By the way, I am worried whether we know m...Helen,<br /><br />By the way, I am worried whether we know much about what counts as enhancing. It may be that before the fall our faculties were much superior to what they are now. Could it not be that, e.g., Einstein-level intelligence is below the norm for humans, but we have fallen and are all impaired?<br /><br />Of course, there are clear cases of enhancing: the giving of functions that don't seem to be properly human (e.g., giving a human the ability to fly).Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-73742788252542295652018-01-14T10:35:58.112-06:002018-01-14T10:35:58.112-06:00Yes, I think you're quite right about the diff...Yes, I think you're quite right about the difference between these which is really important (though I do think it's OK to cheat in social emergencies! so soon after Christmas we all know tactful deception though not lying can be a good thing to do). <br /><br />Of course we still mustn't undervalue healthy functionality even when it comes to protection/support - after all, life itself is made up of healthy-to-some-extent tendencies to function that compose the human being, who will often have a claim on at least low-level care and not just the absence of attack. But yes, fixing functions you never use comes a poor second to fixing functions you use a lot - though not sure the same is true of enhancing above the norm useful healthy functions at huge cost to healthy unused functions.Helen Watthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01884258954532435937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-73387797511686421072018-01-14T09:46:48.159-06:002018-01-14T09:46:48.159-06:00Exactly right, and thank you for saying it. I didn...Exactly right, and thank you for saying it. I didn't think of the danger of the suggestion.<br /><br />I think it's one of those cases where promoting/repairing/protecting, on the one hand, and respecting, on the other, come apart. We have strong reasons to respect health, and hence not deliberately damage it, but when considering the intrinsic value of health itself, apart from cases where the health impacts grade two or three actuality, our reasons for promoting/repairing/protecting health are not all that strong.<br /><br />Another such case is the communication of truth in minor matters. If I hear a friend tell a little white lie or if I make a mistake about a minor matter, my reasons to repair that lie or mistake are very weak. But it is nonetheless always wrong to lie, even about minor matters and to obtain a great good.<br /><br />Even apart from deontology, I think we have many cases where intentional damage is significant but the reasons for preventing and repairing non-intentional damage are pretty weak. Intentional breach of etiquette has a significance disproportionate from the disvalue of non-deliberate breaches. Or consider a priest celebrating a liturgy in a foreign language. If time is limited, he need not put in much effort into ensuring he pronounces every word right (e.g., asking someone ahead of time how to pronounce everything), but to deliberately mispronounce is apt to be a form of sacrilege. Or consider playing a friendly game. There is no point to checking and rechecking that one is following the rules all the time. But to deliberately cheat, even if it is permissible in some circumstances (I am not 100% sure) requires very strong reasons.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-21330667826881257482018-01-14T04:05:02.107-06:002018-01-14T04:05:02.107-06:00This is interesting but I'm troubled by the su...This is interesting but I'm troubled by the suggestion that grade one can be so readily sacrificed - would that apply to deliberate serious attacks on it as well? <br /><br />After all, grade one amounts to 'health' (functionality as opposed to actual functioning) and leaving aside war/self-defence cases of causing some degree of deliberate serious injury, health is something that can call for absolute respect - the so-called 'principle of totality' according to which it is wrong eg to castrate or sterilise even those who will never be sexually active or nontherapeutically inflict brain damage on those a machine is keeping under sedation in any case. <br /><br />So the person linked up to the machine which makes it dangerous to open his eyes shouldn't donate his eyes to someone else even to help that person see, let alone to get a large sum of money he can then use to do a Braille course etc. etc. Of course, there is such a thing as preventive health care, and if the person's environment makes it dangerous to open his eyes, that might conceivably justify an operation to help him keep them closed - but that would be for his own health benefit, not for some benefit which does not help compose health.Helen Watthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01884258954532435937noreply@blogger.com