Quote:
|
Is the bolded part what you mean by "separation of the public realm from the private realm"? When I hear these terms I think about government and the market place. While these two important spheres certainly come into play in the present discussion, I think that most would argue that they are quite secondary to the larger issue: that is, what about embryonic stem cells specifically renders them sacred? On what grounds are "reproductive tissue" technologies immoral? Furthermore, you will need to elaborate upon why you believe that the "separation" of technologies from the "moral and political world" ultimately separates "humans from human life". I don't see how one precludes the other.
|
No, I'm speaking in philosophical terms. So let's start with public v. private. When I say private I am talking about the subjective Kantian private. That is, our thoughts. The private life where our worlds are entirely unique. The public sphere is the place where these thoughts may be expressed and judged by a set of peers. This is where meaning takes place and perhaps, where objective reality is created. Philosophically, we would call this politics.
Following my argument above, politics is human life or at least one of the fundamental ways of creating and validating it.
Quote:
|
If this is the argument that you are making, then might I suggest that you need to do a much better job in making it? Up to this point, I have not understood this as an integral part of any of your responses, and I read quite a few of them. If this is what you wish to communicate and if this is the argument you are seeking to make, then please, for the rest of us, walk us through whatever it is you are trying to say. As it stands now—and I am reasonably confident that I am not alone in this—I don't get it.
|
Now, first of all, I want to make this very clear because I think most people on this board do not know how to have a good discussion. I very much follow the Socratic means of finding truth. That is, following the question. I have always kept utilitarianism in mind, but I thought that polemic interjections and terms like "harvesting" etc... might give some hint as to what I thought on the issue. Let's be honest, most of my views are not the status quo and thus, I am not spared the difficulty of summing up everything in one post, ie. boy, I love science, and having everyone agree with me. I have to interject contrarian views and expect, perhaps incorrectly, that people will follow up.
I shoudn't be so naive, perhaps, but I was educated in a sort of esoteric way of having discussions where one doesn't just necessarily come right and say what he is thinking.
So yes, utilitarianism is part of my point. Although, as I stated earlier, only a part of it. One greater part would be the destruction and degradation of the public realm where the ability to find some form of reality through a discussion between peers is completely missing from the culture.