No matter how much James tries to distance his beliefs from the theist moral valuation of "embryos," there is no moral justification outside of one religious dogma or another. The hypothetical argument that a non-existent, potentially future conscious being did not give informed consent to not be born is just as nonsensical as arguing that, since we did not consent to being born, our parents had no right to proceed. Similarly, James' reductio ad absurdum that being killed while asleep is morally acceptable because we are not conscious at that moment is no better than a strawman.
That said, I highly respect James's research, though I am not impressed with his religious views. It's interesting how one can maintain research objectivity while holding such deep priors—he manages to a good extent, but not quite satisfactorily. One topic James, of course, will not touch is the gradually increasing dysgenics. See Michael Lynch’s 2016 paper, "Mutation and human exceptionalism: Our future genetic load": https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4788123/pdf/869.pdf
Widespread polygenic IVF selection would not only compensate for but reverse this trend, leading to increased human flourishing—rather than clinging to the most nonsensical taboo about the sanctity of a cell or a small cluster of cells. James’s use of inequality or oppressor-oppressed arguments makes his biased judgment even more apparent, and he employs his impressive cognitive abilities to verbally justify this—a perfect example of Stanovich's "My-Side Bias" that often afflicts people with higher cognitive abilities more rather than less, as they are capable of finding a larger number of arguments for their position, while skillfully dismissing arguments against. He ends by promising to ramp up his crusade against the progress of humanity; I hope he will inadvertently promote IVF polygenic selection while opposing it.
I completely agree with Jonathan's gradualist approach. Jonathan, you showed great restraint in response to James's statements, which essentially express his wish for your company to be banned. Hence, my brief opposition statement above.
Additionally: who is making the decision at the point of IVF selection? The only party present is the parents, who will be responsible for decades of raising and educating the child or children. Thus, raising a smarter, healthier, and more psychologically balanced child will be unquestionably more fulfilling than raising a dumber, sicker, and psychologically unbalanced one. Even knowing that they made the statistically best possible choice at the time may make them enjoy raising the child more.
This is the real moral issue, rather than attributing virtue to the preservation of every conceptus.
No matter how much James tries to distance his beliefs from the theist moral valuation of "embryos," there is no moral justification outside of one religious dogma or another. The hypothetical argument that a non-existent, potentially future conscious being did not give informed consent to not be born is just as nonsensical as arguing that, since we did not consent to being born, our parents had no right to proceed. Similarly, James' reductio ad absurdum that being killed while asleep is morally acceptable because we are not conscious at that moment is no better than a strawman.
That said, I highly respect James's research, though I am not impressed with his religious views. It's interesting how one can maintain research objectivity while holding such deep priors—he manages to a good extent, but not quite satisfactorily. One topic James, of course, will not touch is the gradually increasing dysgenics. See Michael Lynch’s 2016 paper, "Mutation and human exceptionalism: Our future genetic load": https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4788123/pdf/869.pdf
Widespread polygenic IVF selection would not only compensate for but reverse this trend, leading to increased human flourishing—rather than clinging to the most nonsensical taboo about the sanctity of a cell or a small cluster of cells. James’s use of inequality or oppressor-oppressed arguments makes his biased judgment even more apparent, and he employs his impressive cognitive abilities to verbally justify this—a perfect example of Stanovich's "My-Side Bias" that often afflicts people with higher cognitive abilities more rather than less, as they are capable of finding a larger number of arguments for their position, while skillfully dismissing arguments against. He ends by promising to ramp up his crusade against the progress of humanity; I hope he will inadvertently promote IVF polygenic selection while opposing it.
I completely agree with Jonathan's gradualist approach. Jonathan, you showed great restraint in response to James's statements, which essentially express his wish for your company to be banned. Hence, my brief opposition statement above.
Additionally: who is making the decision at the point of IVF selection? The only party present is the parents, who will be responsible for decades of raising and educating the child or children. Thus, raising a smarter, healthier, and more psychologically balanced child will be unquestionably more fulfilling than raising a dumber, sicker, and psychologically unbalanced one. Even knowing that they made the statistically best possible choice at the time may make them enjoy raising the child more.
This is the real moral issue, rather than attributing virtue to the preservation of every conceptus.