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.


.