tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post3965949433885699014..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Fetuses and capacityAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-91538350168148275582011-08-05T08:41:28.075-05:002011-08-05T08:41:28.075-05:00As I said, I think the debate on proper function h...As I said, I think the debate on proper function has reached its useful course, and I would ask that no more comments on that topic be submitted, at least for a while.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-48520513960289755752011-08-05T01:27:29.034-05:002011-08-05T01:27:29.034-05:00Enenennx,
You explicitly said, "Things aren&...Enenennx,<br /><br />You explicitly said, "Things aren't "designed" to do anything."<br /><br />If you were open to the fact that things have design you wouldn't have said what's above. Since you are making a positive assertion in that above statement does put some burden on you. <br /><br />I don't simply say "look around" to make my point. Plants are designed to have roots and leaves. Roots take in nutrients from the soil. It's no surprise that plant leaves contain chlorophyll--to obtain energy via photosynthesis. We know plants are designed to live in environments that contain sunlight and soil (though the range of light and soil needed will depend on the particular plant we are discussing).<br /><br />One of the things the Human Genome Project is doing is showing that our genes are designed to create specific types of proteins.<br /><br />To say any of this is just a mere argument from intuition or an argument from ignorance would be a metaphorical slap in the face of the biologist.Jarrett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191046219215006345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-47786186242461575152011-08-05T00:39:57.244-05:002011-08-05T00:39:57.244-05:00And by the way, it's not a "non-starter&q...And by the way, it's not a "non-starter" to convince me regarding your ideas on design. I am open to the evidence. Don't place the onus on me. You are making the assertion that things are designed in a way to have an innate purpose that once actualized is the natural form of an entity. The non-starter might by for you in your ability to present a convincing argument backed by evidence. Cheers.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-52960949576937270602011-08-05T00:35:38.833-05:002011-08-05T00:35:38.833-05:00I believe that leaves have chlorophyll and that hu...I believe that leaves have chlorophyll and that humans have lungs, etc., because the forces of nature allow for these possibilities to exist. Just as the forces of nature allow for 30-50% of fetuses to be aborted for reasons innate to the fetus itself. <br /><br />You say things are designed, and your argument is "look around". It is essentially an argument from intuition (and ignorance). And we know our intuition is easily duped. (What was your intuition designed for? And why such the poor design such that it is so easily duped?). If things are designed for something specific, what do you make of the fact that 30-50% of fetuses are spontaneously aborted. Poor design? What about the course of the vagus nerve? Greater than 95% of biologists say biological life is not designed in the way you are suggesting. Though an appeal to consensus is fallacious, it does suggest you have a large task ahead of you, and saying "look around" isn't going to cut it.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-41390083202466667182011-08-04T23:37:06.038-05:002011-08-04T23:37:06.038-05:00I, unfortunately, don't have a perfect answer ...I, unfortunately, don't have a perfect answer for your questions. (I do think for each question that they do expect something of one sort or another. I think this problem is merely epistemic.) I'd argue along the lines that an entity expects something that it's suppose/meant to encounter for it to carry about its functions based from its very design. The question I'm curious about is what all entities are actually designed and what constitutes design (Prof. Pruss, if I ever write a dissertation it should be on that question!). It could be the case that elementary particles are not designed but when you start to combine them they are.<br /><br />However, what makes it impossible for you to even comes close to accepting my argument is when you wrote this, "Things aren't "designed" to do anything."<br /><br />It's a non-starter for me to convince you. Do you think it's some mere accident that plant leaves contain chlorophyll? Or that humans have lungs for no reason? Or that plants have roots for no reason? Is it just some strange mishap that the spinal cord fits in the vertebral column? When you observe our world, you don't think these entities are designed to carry about any particular kind of function? Why do carnivores have sharp teeth, and why do herbivorous have dull molars? You expect me to believe that whatever the reason is, it's not because it was designed to have such characteristics.Jarrett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191046219215006345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-31980919448992616702011-08-04T23:33:45.022-05:002011-08-04T23:33:45.022-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jarrett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191046219215006345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-83511423579322866562011-08-04T22:43:56.371-05:002011-08-04T22:43:56.371-05:00AP you are addressing JC with your last comment I ...AP you are addressing JC with your last comment I presume. I only use "non-ideal" because JC's category of that which something is supposed to be requires the creation of another category that encompasses everything else. This is what I am pointing to as being arbitrary. Thanks for confirming.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-55347989069029638832011-08-04T22:36:45.819-05:002011-08-04T22:36:45.819-05:00If you are still reading along.
What entities hav...If you are still reading along.<br /><br />What entities have the ability to expect and what things do not have the ability to expect? Can a pebble expect anything? Can a fetus? Can a conceptus? Can an egg? Can a purine? Can any of the molecules to end up becoming an egg and then a conceptus and then a fetus? You are arbitrarily drawing a line at what can and cannot expect things.<br /><br />Consider this. I am planing an outside gathering this weekend. For it to occur ideally, it best not rain. Can I expect it not to rain. Maybe if I look at the weather I will have a probabilistic assumption about whether it will rain or not. But it would be silly to say that it not raining is the only proper or natural or innate thing that will occur. I can expect purple unicorns not to fall out of the sky, because this is not within the realm of possibilities. But from within the set of possibilities I must expect one of those possibilities to occur, but any of those possibilities are all natural and innate to the mechanisms of weather. And the guests at the picnic would think I was crazy if I apologized that the innate property of my outdoor ideal picnic did not manifest because of the rain.<br /><br />Your handling of the innate argument remains unconvincing to me. Have you tried it elsewhere, or do you know anyone else trying there hand at it? Cheers.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-39556986966332089802011-08-04T22:34:31.353-05:002011-08-04T22:34:31.353-05:00Notice, though, that you may have implicitly admit...Notice, though, that you may have implicitly admitted normative vocabulary by calling these outcomes "non-ideal".Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-55412739123582168222011-08-04T20:53:19.673-05:002011-08-04T20:53:19.673-05:00You are right, all you can do is keep giving examp...You are right, all you can do is keep giving examples of non-ideal outcomes that fetuses can become and "say" that those outcomes are not innate to it. You have yet to offer a reason as to why those outcomes are not also innate, as I have showed many of them are. They examples of non-ideal outcomes goes on and on and on and on.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-89800976772023400342011-08-04T19:48:48.885-05:002011-08-04T19:48:48.885-05:00Enenennx,
You keep ignoring the function of the ...Enenennx, <br /><br />You keep ignoring the function of the entity at hand. It can be the case--following the laws of physics--that the DNA is altered in such a way as to not develop eyes. This doesn't therefore mean that what's innate to the fetus is not to grow eyes! That's the point I'm making. All I can do is keep giving examples of things that go awry which are not meant be done by the entity.<br /><br />I agree it is a mindless process, but we can recognize if such a process came to make the DNA to not produce the male or female genitalia, then I think it's obvious that mutation is "bad." <br /><br />Yes, I believe, that sperm and eggs are designed in such a way as to expect the other half. That's why sperm and eggs are haploid! Also the sperm expects to swim through some kind of fluid substance. That's the function of the flagellum. So, when a flagellum doesn't form then something has gone wrong. I don't think any of this forces me to make nonsense statements. <br /><br />I know a biologist and physicist will tell <i>me to expect</i> DNA damage, but they will not tell me that the <i>fetus should expect</i> an environment contrary for it develop the way it was designed for. (A fetus doesn't expect to be in a womb swamped in methamphetamines or excess amounts of alcohol, or in a womb of a severely injured and sick mother, or in a completely dehydrated womb, or in an environmental in which some parasite completely eats the fetus, so forth or on.)<br /><br />I agree with Prof. Pruss, that this thread has reached its course. (I was just about completed my typing before I saw it) I enjoyed all the exchanges. :)Jarrett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191046219215006345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-48696695548066358252011-08-04T19:14:58.081-05:002011-08-04T19:14:58.081-05:00Prof AP: "I think this discussion, interesti...Prof AP: "I think this discussion, interesting and challenging as it's been, is reaching the end of its usefulness."<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughts and time Prof AP.<br /><br />Prof AP asks: "If there is no objective value, why should I care about satisfaction and suffering?"<br /><br />You are an individual that experiences numerous stimuli, some of which you are going to enjoy more that others, therefore a discussion of them has benefit, regardless if morality is objective. "should" you engage in this discussion? That is a different question as to whether or not such discussions have the possibility to produce benefit, and is not contingent on whether morality is objective. But if you're feeling apathetic and have no predilections whatsoever, feel free to sit this one out. Cheers.<br /><br />It the organic destiny of some conceptuses to perish?Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-68133087016279351072011-08-04T18:57:56.848-05:002011-08-04T18:57:56.848-05:00I think this discussion, interesting and challengi...I think this discussion, interesting and challenging as it's been, is reaching the end of its usefulness.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-21157477949831680642011-08-04T18:56:59.267-05:002011-08-04T18:56:59.267-05:00"You have progressed from 'potential'..."You have progressed from 'potential' to 'innate' to 'proper' to 'good'. These are all highly subjective terms, I was hoping for something concrete"<br /><br />I think the good is about as objective a term as there is. :-)<br /><br />In any case, serious discussion of abortion should presuppose objective truth in ethics. <br /><br />"Is it normal for a male praying mantis's head to be eaten?"<br /><br />Probably. It fulfills the organism's organic destiny by providing for the children.<br /><br />"It may be the case that moral matters have additional attributes which contribute to human suffering and satisfaction, and as such discussing ways to maximize satisfaction and minimizing suffering seems likely to still be beneficial."<br /><br />If there is no objective value, why should I care about satisfaction and suffering?Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-52813770626266283362011-08-04T18:26:00.939-05:002011-08-04T18:26:00.939-05:00Is the function of the male head of a praying mant...Is the function of the male head of a praying mantis to help that insect navigate his environment, or is it's function to be eaten so as to provide sustenance to the mother and larvae of the mother praying mantis who is serving to propagate his genetic material? Is the function of a bee's stinger to sting and tear of it's owner's abdomen? I agree the function of an entity is blurry around the edges, often described by the entity using the thing in question.<br /><br />Is it normal for conceptuses to be spontaneously aborted? Is it normal for a male praying mantis's head to be eaten?<br /><br />If vales are subjective don't we still have an interest in discussing moral mattes? It may be the case that moral matters have additional attributes which contribute to human suffering and satisfaction, and as such discussing ways to maximize satisfaction and minimizing suffering seems likely to still be beneficial.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-65298130629651331352011-08-04T18:24:35.139-05:002011-08-04T18:24:35.139-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-19997445807512554092011-08-04T18:13:59.561-05:002011-08-04T18:13:59.561-05:00[...continued]
Yes it is natural for DNA to be mu...[...continued]<br /><br />Yes it is natural for DNA to be mutated by free radicals. Imagine this leading to a mutation which then protects an individual from free radical damage (or making free radical damage of benefit) and this mutation has the additional advantage of slowing telomere degradation and apoptosis thus extending an organism's life span by decades. If this is not natural, what is it? Supernatural? It may not be what you desire, but mutation is certainly what is to be expected when free radicals intermingle with DNA. Let me repeat, it is to be expected, that is what occurs. Your argument is boiling down to arguing just that you want something, and that your want is "natural" and "proper" and "innate". But you are trying to couch this assertion in more intellectual sounding terms like innate properties, or what something should expect. Every biologist and physicist will tell you to expect DNA damage when it is exposed to certain radiation. <br /><br />You have progressed from "potential" to "innate" to "proper" to "good". These are all highly subjective terms, I was hoping for something concrete. It obviously doesn't just boil down to that which is "innate" to an entity, as you claim. "Bad" mutations are innate to DNA. The ability to be subject to the mutagenic effects of radiation is innate to chromosomes. Failure for a gamete to hook up with what you feel it is designed to hook up is innate to the grand majority of gametes across all oraganisms. Lack of continued existence is innate to 30-50% of fetuses. <br /><br /><br />I wish I could understand where your argument is coming from. I certainly don't feel as if I have the right answers here, I'm just not swayed by your handling of innate and potential and proper arguments.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-36747141267077536512011-08-04T18:13:32.642-05:002011-08-04T18:13:32.642-05:00Calling certain arrangements of DNA that arise inn...Calling certain arrangements of DNA that arise innately "abnormalities" is an artifact of our biases. Would it be better if we called them "natural chromosomal variances" because that is what they are! The point is the same mutagenic forces that cause variance X which leads to spontaneous abortion are the same mutagenic causes which cause variance Y which leads to you developing the ability to fly (or the ability to have just slightly better night vision through a proliferation of corneal rods, whatever.)<br /><br />Transcription errors are built into the functioning of DNA as they are preserved over history as they have contributed a survival benefit. Such mutations are not determined by external forces. They are innate to the properties of the chromosomes themselves. Such a mechanism necessarily produces "good" and "bad" mutations, it is a mindless process. Because environments change, only organisms which have the capacity to change are going to be the organisms in existence. Hence both good and bad mutations are innate. <br /><br />Things aren't "designed" to do anything. Based on their genetic history entities come to exist in an environment that supports its continued existence or one that doesn't, or one a variety in between, there is no "proper" relationship here between an entity and a certain environment because the entity is a manifestation of the environment.<br /><br />Does each sperm expect an egg and each egg expect a sperm? This is just not biological truth. Your argument is forcing you to make nonsense statements in my opinion. Is an egg which fails to meet its expectations of finding a sperm improper and unnatural. If this is the case the majority of the history of life on this earth across all species is improper and unnatural - it is amazing the biosphere exists while functioning so unnaturally the great majority of the time!<br /><br />JC you say: "Just because it's natural (given the laws of physics) for free radicals to exist and for it to "grab" an electron from the DNA and therefore causes a genetic mutation that could result in cancer, chromosomal abnormalities, etc. doesn't mean it's natural for the entity at hand. Because what's innate to the entity isn't designed for those things to occur for it to carry about its function."<br /><br />[continued…]Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-39514197406173394732011-08-04T18:06:54.704-05:002011-08-04T18:06:54.704-05:00Enenennx,
I agree. It's completely natural (g...Enenennx,<br /><br />I agree. It's completely natural (given the laws of physics) that those things occur. <br /><br />Just like it's completely natural for our sun--once it reaches the end of its life cycle--to expand and literally evaporate the inner planets. However, it is not natural for those entities on those planets to be evaporated. That's the crux of the matter! The entities on earth are not designed (at least not yet) to withstand such extreme temperatures. <br /><br />Another example: It's natural (given the laws of physics) if I were to put my hand into hydrochloric acid that it would dissolve. However, it's not natural that my hand should ever be placed into hydrochloric acid!Jarrett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191046219215006345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-90683912458429252982011-08-04T17:39:56.056-05:002011-08-04T17:39:56.056-05:00I make no assumption that each thing has only one ...I make no assumption that each thing has only one proper function. It's quite possible for an item to have many proper functions.<br /><br />There might be vagueness around the edges, too. Thus, it is clear that it is a function of the eyes to see and it is not a function of the eyes to be pulled out by their possessor to be eaten. There may be borderline cases that are unclear. That doesn't challenge the distinction between proper function and not proper function.<br /><br />In any given case, we need to ask what value and normalcy facts are to be explained and whether we need to posit proper function to explain them. Thus, it is normal for a human to have two eyes and abnormal to have only one. This fact can be explained by positing three-dimensional sight as a proper function of the human visual system, and noting that having two eyes is very important to this proper function.<br /><br />Of course, this only works if one thinks that values are objective.<br /><br />But of course if values aren't objective, there is little point to discussing abortion or any other moral matter.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-39102383719034264822011-08-04T17:23:08.890-05:002011-08-04T17:23:08.890-05:00But we just call them "abnormalities" th...But we just call them "abnormalities" that doesn't mean they are not natural.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-3424491502349214692011-08-04T17:20:22.616-05:002011-08-04T17:20:22.616-05:00Enenennx,
I don't think labeling one proper a...Enenennx,<br /><br />I don't think labeling one proper and the other one as not to be arbitrary. With regards to the majority of miscarriages arising because of of chromosomal abnormalities. That's just my point! Abnormalities, defects, mistakes, etc (things have gone awry for the entity). These abnormalities could result in from the fact the case that the body was lacking a hormone(s), or some free radical came into contact with the DNA and resulted in a genetic mutation, etc. Point being these things are not innate to the entity to carry its functions it was designed for. <br /><br />One labels one proper and the other not-proper, by the fact of what's innate to the entity and what is was designed to do. It wouldn't be proper for a new genetic mutation to result if it doesn't help add to (more modestly thwart) the function of the entity at hand. So, there can be both "good" and "bad" mutations, but what actually makes them good or bad is do they either thwart or advance (or at least maintain) a particular function of the entity at hand. This is what's crucial for the distinction. <br /><br />Another thing to keep in mind is what's innate to the sperm and egg, individually. The sperm and egg are both expecting (innately, as the were built) the other half to fall within a particular range as to allow for proper fetal development.<br /><br />We always need to be concerned and focused about what's innate to the entity at hand and what is their function to carry out as they were designed for. Just because it's natural (given the laws of physics) for free radicals to exist and for it to "grab" an electron from the DNA and therefore causes a genetic mutation that could result in cancer, chromosomal abnormalities, etc. doesn't mean it's natural for the entity at hand. Because what's innate to the entity isn't designed for those things to occur for it to carry about its function.<br /><br />I don't believe I'm having a bias. Yes, we can attribute functions for all sort of things (One could attribute a function to the sun when it becomes a red giant and evaporates all the inner planets. However, that doesn't mean the entities on those planets are meant to be evaporated! Even though this will naturally occur one day). But, again, what matters is what's innate to the entity at hand and what it's suppose to carry out as it was designed for. A fetus has innately built into it to develop into a being of consciousness, intellect, and language (also the fetus is innately built as a sexual being, which can keep the circle of life alive).Jarrett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191046219215006345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-37486281435427741642011-08-04T16:56:04.838-05:002011-08-04T16:56:04.838-05:00Forgive me if my points and questions are stupid h...Forgive me if my points and questions are stupid here.<br /><br />First, about teeth. Teeth can also function in mate attraction. Teeth can also function in articulation. Affricitives and sibilants would not be possible without teeth. So everything has a range of functions, and to just chose one or a just a range of them, is arbitrary, yes? To explore the idea of teeth in mate attraction consider what if the wearing of a teeth necklace serves to display in a particular tribal culture one's greater worth than another member, and increases the chances that the teeth-necklace wearing tribesman will reproduce more children (and more teeth)? So you would likely admit that things have a range of function, but you don't offer any way, yet, to distinguish proper functions from improper functions.<br /><br />Prof AP says: "First there is the metaphysical question: What is it that makes claims of the form "x has F as its proper function" be true. That's a tough question, but one must at least admit of the possibility that proper function is fundamental and hence cannot be explained any further. "<br /><br />This metaphysical question is asking only which function is an entity's proper function. It assumes both 1) that an entity has a proper function and also 2) that that function is unique (one in number). Whether or not an entity has a proper function is what I'd like to see demonstrated or see an argument for. Why is the question ["what" makes the statement "x has F as its proper function" true], and not ["is" the statement "x has a proper function" true]?<br /><br />Prof AP also says: "Second there is the epistemological question: How do we know what is x's proper function?"<br /><br />What is the proper function of a stick? If it has none, what things have a proper function and which things do not. If it is that only those things which have value can have function, what comes first, value, or function? Do you value something which has a function, or does something with a function have value. I am slow, but this seems circular. <br /><br />Is not the first question, do entities have proper functions? If some entities do have proper functions and some entities do not have proper functions, what is the criteria that distinguishes between entities which do have proper function and entities which do not, and what makes those criteria valid?<br /><br />Possibilities, potentialities, and proper functions, oh, my.<br />Cheers.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-4336116458420305652011-08-04T16:08:54.559-05:002011-08-04T16:08:54.559-05:00That the fetus has value should not be particularl...That the fetus has <em>value</em> should not be particularly controversial. All life, human and not, has value. The question under debate here is whether the human fetus has the kind of moral status that the typical human adult has.<br /><br />Nor is it necessary to hold that <em>everything</em> has proper function to hold that some things do. It is plain that teeth are for biting and are not for hanging around one's neck in a necklace (to use an example from a paper by Levin that I otherwise would not endorse). <br /><br />Now, we can ask two separate questions. <br /><br />First there is the <em>metaphysical</em> question: What is it that makes claims of the form "x has F as its proper function" be <em>true</em>. That's a tough question, but one must at least admit of the possibility that proper function is fundamental and hence cannot be explained any further.<br /><br />Second there is the <em>epistemological</em> question: How do we know what is x's proper function? <br /><br />Here, I think we can say a few things. As in other cases, we try to come up with the best explanatory theory that coheres with the facts. In this case, the facts include value facts, such as that it is better for a human to see than to be blind, or that it is better to have two legs than one.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-38317084737656814652011-08-04T15:54:02.652-05:002011-08-04T15:54:02.652-05:00[…continued]
You JC say: "Proper, in this c...[…continued]<br /><br />You JC say: "Proper, in this context, means what's expected innately to the entity at hand to carry out it's functions. " In doing so you are admitting a bias. The biomass of aborted fetuses have function, they are recycled through the biosphere. This is admittedly a less obvious function, but I doubt anyone will deny it, once thought about. [This of course depends on when one says a "you" exists or begins to exist. That which is a necessary component of you (your biomass) will have the function of returning to the biosphere after it stops functioning. Is this not proper or natural?]<br /><br />Does water rolling down a hill have a proper course? I would say no. Is merely the path of least resistance the "proper" course? No. And it is not the only option available to the water. The same forces of friction and mass and gravity are working on the water no matter which course it takes, and it will course down the hill overcoming resistances that might be greater than some other path that would have offered less resistance but the water with its momentum found this larger resistance over-come-able and so said "screw it" and continued down the hill without seeking the exact path of least resistance.<br /><br />The idea of choosing a specific outcome that is "innate" or "natural" to an entity and labeling it as "proper" is arbitrary, and vacuous, or so it appears to me. Consider this, what is the sun's innate, natural, proper function? Or what is the "proper" function of a stick that has fallen from a tree? These things simply do things based on what they are composed of and what environment they are in. To claim that a conceptus has a purpose because it has value or moral properties, when the sun or stick do not have proper functions is presuming what you are trying to argue (i.e. you are asserting something has value because it has a purpose, but then saying that thing has purpose because we have decided to value it [see your Aristotle reference]).<br /><br />Good luck on your certification.Enenennxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522366041938333053noreply@blogger.com