Sun 12 Jan 1997 20:12
[LIMITS.DOC]
limits of behavior
This is meant to provide for a minimum standard of behavior by which an
individual's behavior can be determined to be non-negative. These
standards apply only to the human. It is assumed the human considers
the survival of other species only in relation to it's own survival.
basic limit
One does not reduce another person's potential to act in the way that person chooses to act without that person's assent.
explanation
Any behavior which limits the behavior of another without the other's
assent will be called "destructive behavior." Examples of this include
violence and hateful words which prevent an individual from using her
attention or her self in a way that she would choose. Examples of
limitations on an indivdual's behavior that have been made with the
individual's assent are (implicitly) the laws of the society into which
the individual is born. These laws in many cases do not limit behavior
but punish behaviors which have been perceived to be in society's best
interest to discourage. Non-implicit limits with assent include
contracts, promises, and participation in games.
Providing misinformation to another without the other's assent is also
included in this category of destructive behavior. Fraud, deception,
and lies give false data to an individual and cause the individual to
think and act in a way which she would not act had she not been
provided misinformation. Deception is often important in scientific
research. In an experiment involving deception which will occupy a
noticeable amount of participants' attention and have a significant
affect on participants' behavior, participants must be made aware of
the nature of the potential behavioral demands and risks of
participation before assenting to participate. For example, staging a
robbery in a public location would be destructive behavior unless the
assent of bystanders who might potentially get involved had been
attained at some time before the staging. Likewise, having a
confederate of the observer cut in a line of waiting people who had not
assented to be involved in an experiment of this level is destructive
behavior.
expansion
What is a person? A discussion of parent-child behavioral limits.
A group of cells may appropriately be termed a human organism from the
moment of conception. Every fertilized egg is assumed to have a
motivation to survive in a way it determines is meaningful (in many
cases we may call this a seeking for a pleasant existence). The purpose
for which two organisms engage in behavior conducive to egg
fertilization is assumed to be to create a viable human organism. A
viable human organism is one which will be capable of maintaining
itself independently of its parents after an amount of time and care
comprable to what the parents can expect from observing functioning
members of their society. For example, in one society children may
typically be on their own upon reaching puberty, while in another
society children may typically not end adolescence (depedence upon
parents after reaching puberty) until the age of 18 or even 24.
The parents have an obligation to their fertilized egg to allow it to
fulfill its motivation to achieve a meaningful existence until the new
human organism reaches the traditional age of independence. "Meaningful
existence" means whatever sort of existence the parents consider
meaningful. The parents' determination of meaning is implicitly subject
to the basic determination of meaning of the society or group of which
they are a part. The parents are not obligated to assist the
pre-independent organism in persuing meaning inconsistent with their
own determinations of meaning. The parents are justified in using
non-destructive methods to encourage the pre-independent's adherence to
behavior patterns consistent with their determinations of meaning.
Non-destructive methods are limited to those actions with do not
adversely affect the physical, emotional, intellectual or social
development of the pre-independent. Development is measured by the
standards of the group of which the parents are a member. In a society
which accepts corporal punishment, one might consider corporal
punishment of pre-independents to be non-destructive behavior. In the
United States, however, non-destructive punishments generally include
removal of pleasures which the child enjoys but does not depend on for
development, for example, a prohibition on playing with a certain toy,
or a temporary restriction from a non-essential activity, like being
able to go to the park with a friend.
The developing organism, in turn, has an obligation to meet the level
of viability dictated by its parents expectations. If the organism is
determined to not be viable before its birthing process begins, the
parents would not be unjust in destroying the organism. If the organism
has any detectable defects which will prevent it from reaching
independence with an expected amount of parental support, it is not
considered viable. Certainly parents may decide to accept the increased
demands of a less viable organism, if they are capable of providing the
necessary support or can find assistence in providing such support.
What can parents reasonably expect? A one-armed child is not going to
be at much of a disadvantage in terms of viability in much of the
United States today. It is reasonable that parents should expect
children with the regular number and appearance of body parts and the
regular level of body functioning. There appear to be two criteria
here: expectation, and viability. Certainly it seems possible that
parents could come to expect to control more and more of their fetus'
features which would have little impact on its viability. Fetuses could
be aborted because of their sex, lack of skin pigment, or perhaps even
hair color. Only in situations in which the parents can reasonably
expect to control variables such as sex and hair color should abortions
of viable fetuses which do not meet these expecations be justified.
While abortions of fetuses whose only unexpected trait is albinism or
an extra toe are not not justified, they are certainly extreme, as the
fetus has all but fulfilled expectations. Unexpected occurrences
occuring after the birthing process begins do not justify infanticide.
A critical variable here is detection. If deviations from expectation
cannot be detected before birthing begins then the fetus cannot justly
be destroyed, unless the fetus itself was unexpected. It does seem
unreasonable to expect parents to support an organism in an environment
in which the organism will never achieve viability or will soon die. I
expect that in some of these situations infanticide is justified.
The decision of whether or not to destroy the developing human is
ultimately the mother's (if there is a human mother). The father may
disagree, and if the parents' determination of expectations for the
fetus was determined before conception the father (if there is one) may
not be required to help support a non-viable human.
Society determines the limits to which destruction of the developing
child may be taken. In societies where detection of abnormalities
before birth is not commonplace, infanticide may be condoned.
scientific research: genetic engineering and the evol experiment
Fetuses may only be designed with the goal of enhancing their
capabilities. A defective fetus may not be engineered, this is an
example of destructive behavior. If results are not as expected
abortion is justified. Any fetuses carried to term must be provided for
as standard in the society in which the artifacts the developing child
has most contact with were made. There is no imprisoning or growing of
slaves, unless it is in a society in which that is an accepted practice
for children. The creators of the fetus are responsible for providing
for it a normal development in the society in which (as I stated
before). The creators must ensure that the creators obligations as
parents of the fetus are met or accepted by other members of the
society which the child will be a part.
The foetus' motivation is to achieve a meaningful survival, as it determines its meaning.
.