Grey Area

[Jet Black]

I am interested by grey areas, because so often there are no contingencies made for them. When talking about grey areas, these apply to a huge variety of areas, from abortion to sexuality and so on. I will throw a couple in to see what people think. please don't just focus on the sexuality ones, if anyone wants to discuss these in depth, there is an appropriate forum for that.

abortion: Anencephaly: this is a pretty gruesome condition where the brain does not develop. there is often a little bit of the brain stem that keeps the heart going and things like that, but on the whole this does not realistically resemble a human life in any way (and it looks really gross)

there is a link here with a diagram. there are pictures, and I have seen a fetus/baby like this, and it is not pretty, so I won't post any proper pics.
http://students.biology.lsa.umich.edu/bio208_17/Effects%20on%20Brain.htm

what do people think should be done in cases like this.

gender: there are numberous examples of gender deformities, from chromosomal defects such as XX "males", XY "females", XXY "males", X0 "females", XYY males and so on, each with their own perculiar symptoms... how should these be dealt with in terms of gender rules.

nature produces a large number of these kinds of grey areas... how do we deal with them?

 

[tcampen]

Uhhhh....Uhhhhhhh.....can't.......think.........in.............terms...........of...... ...........grey..............areas. Must..............draw...........bright.................lines............for......... everying.........ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!



Yea, which gender should a hermaphrodite be? Since they are both, shouldn't they get to swing both ways, or at least choose which gender they want to be? Where's the bright line on this, anyway? I'm about to short circuit!

 

[ej]

I think the whole universe is described in shades of grey. There are people who like to believe in black-and-white, but these extremes do not really exist, IMHO

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,


interestingly enough... when a baby is born, if it's genitalia is under-developed, the doctors will, on occasion, simply snip or cut away, to give the semblance of the proper genitalia.

i knew a girl a long time ago that was raised as a boy for her entire childhood... only when she turned 13 and started developing mammories did she figure out something wasn't right. seems that her genitalia were larger than the "accepted" norm, so the doctors, without consulting the parents (yes, it was a large lawsuit reward), simply decided to "shape" her genitalia into male genitalia.

i don't know how she's doing any longer as we lost touch many years ago... i still wonder, though, if this sort of thing goes on all the time.

much to my dismay, i've found out that it does. espeically with hemaphrodite babies. often, the doctors will choose which sex they think the baby should be based on which of the genitalia seems to be most prevelant.

http://mosaic.echonyc.com/~onissues/su98coventry.html

 

[ph8]

Are babies with "Anencephaly" capable of anything but the basics of survival? IE: Can they process thoughts as they grow older. Or is a beating heart the extend of their 'life'?

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

Namaste all,


interestingly enough... when a baby is born, if it's genitalia is under-developed, the doctors will, on occasion, simply snip or cut away, to give the semblance of the proper genitalia.

i knew a girl a long time ago that was raised as a boy for her entire childhood... only when she turned 13 and started developing mammories did she figure out something wasn't right. seems that her genitalia were larger than the "accepted" norm, so the doctors, without consulting the parents (yes, it was a large lawsuit reward), simply decided to "shape" her genitalia into male genitalia.

i don't know how she's doing any longer as we lost touch many years ago... i still wonder, though, if this sort of thing goes on all the time.

much to my dismay, i've found out that it does. espeically with hemaphrodite babies. often, the doctors will choose which sex they think the baby should be based on which of the genitalia seems to be most prevelant.

http://mosaic.echonyc.com/~onissues/su98coventry.html

I posted a topic on this a few months ago with satistics on populations, I will look for it.

 

[billwald]

"Hard cases make bad law." <G>

 

[tcampen]

Oliver Wendel Holmes? I can't remember, but it is oh soooooooo true!

 

[stubbornkelly]

I don't think I understand. Things are right or wrong. Now, before I get jumped on with, "but what about in this circumstance or that circumstance," things are right or wrong, but the way we categorize "things" isn't always right. We tend to talk about something in abstract concepts, rather than in specifics, and that's what makes for what we perceive as the grey.

 

[tcampen]

The difficultly is in the details. No two circumstances are exactly the same, nor are difficult circumstances really ever neat, tidy and simple. Bright lines are very convenient, but rarely truely applicable.

 

[stubbornkelly]

Mmm, I don't think it's a matter of there not being a right or wrong answer, though. We may not know what it is, but I think there is one.

I tend to think we make it more confusing by not having a set code of ethics. I've heard people go through Kantianism, utilitarianism, then to the golden rule, then back to utilitarianism while making a decision (without knowing they're going round and round) and just get confused. Or, they have a decision made, then try to fit that into a code of ethics, then get frustrated later because the code they've chosen (remember, based on an already formed opinion) doesn't give the answer they want to another dilemma.

As I said, albeit not so explicitly, I think we tend to look at an issue from the surface, rather than looking at the underlying value we're trying to uphold with our decision. Most of the time, we're trying to figure out if a certain application is correct, without looking at the value itself. It's not just what we value, but what we value about it, and why. You can often break it down into a very simple statement.

I'm certainly not saying making moral decisions is easy, just that 1) we don't often have a good understanding of what question we're really asking and 2) we're not consistent in our rules of application.

 

[Fiat]

I think the whole universe is described in shades of grey. There are people who like to believe in black-and-white, but these extremes do not really exist, IMHO

I agree, as a former black and white believer, I have come to realize and accept that grey areas definately exist. There is so much we do not understand and we try to put in a box. Not everything fits within the box, hence the grey area.

And that site was ......

 

[*Miau*]

Sometimes things can't be put into two categories (black and white/wrong and right)
You've got to have different categories.

Take incest for example... when you hear it you instantly think: Ooohhh that's bad - the man should be punished... Urgh!! And YES it IS bad, BUT there are different levels of incest, however it's all called "incest" Persoanally I'd say that going ALL the way, and many many times is much worse than sexual touchings... well that what I think.
But whatever it is, it is wrong, but there are different categories of "wrong".

 

[Crazy Liz]

"Hard cases make bad law." <G>

Things are right or wrong. Now, before I get jumped on with, "but what about in this circumstance or that circumstance," things are right or wrong, but the way we categorize "things" isn't always right. We tend to talk about something in abstract concepts, rather than in specifics, and that's what makes for what we perceive as the grey.

You may have a useful approach to this dilemma, SK. If I were to synthesize these two statements, I think I would say that in hard cases the general rules may not apply, but we should not try to use the hard cases to set any kind of precedent for future cases - hard or easy. Simply treat each hard case as sui generis.

Is that what you were getting at?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Mmm, I don't think it's a matter of there not being a right or wrong answer, though. We may not know what it is, but I think there is one.

I tend to think we make it more confusing by not having a set code of ethics. I've heard people go through Kantianism, utilitarianism, then to the golden rule, then back to utilitarianism while making a decision (without knowing they're going round and round) and just get confused. Or, they have a decision made, then try to fit that into a code of ethics, then get frustrated later because the code they've chosen (remember, based on an already formed opinion) doesn't give the answer they want to another dilemma.

As I said, albeit not so explicitly, I think we tend to look at an issue from the surface, rather than looking at the underlying value we're trying to uphold with our decision. Most of the time, we're trying to figure out if a certain application is correct, without looking at the value itself. It's not just what we value, but what we value about it, and why. You can often break it down into a very simple statement.

I'm certainly not saying making moral decisions is easy, just that 1) we don't often have a good understanding of what question we're really asking and 2) we're not consistent in our rules of application.

SK, have you ever read Bonhoeffer's Ethics? He takes a different approach than you, but I think you might find it very sympathetic.

Bonhoeffer's ethics are thoroughly Christian, so without a Christian framework they might not make any sense at all. But basically he says there are some situations in which there is no possible action that is truly right. Guilt will be incurred no matter what one does. In his own life, this had to do with Hitler. He could not do nothing and let Hitler continue. He would thereby share in Hitler's guilt. But could he conspire to assassinate Hitler? After all other options to remove him from power nonviolently had failed, he concluded this was the only responsible action. Yet he never thought murder was right. He knew he would incur guilt for it. However, he was able to do it because many years earlier he had fully developed his Christian theology, which made a distinct point that God justifies the sinner, not the sin. It's very interesting to see how his discussion of cheap grace and costly grace in Discipleship lead him much later to this kind of ethic.

ISTM that you & Bonhoeffer have both found language to say that a definite moral choice exists in situations where no rules can really be applied without resulting in some terrible absurdity. You say in such situations you need to find the unique right and the unique wrong. Bonhoeffer says in the truly hard cases all choices are in some way wrong, so you have to take responsible action and trust in God's grace to justify sinners and not their sin.

 

[stubbornkelly]

Take incest for example... when you hear it you instantly think: Ooohhh that's bad - the man should be punished... Urgh!! And YES it IS bad, BUT there are different levels of incest, however it's all called "incest"

Incest is simply the word we use to describe sexual activity between those closely related. Nonconsensual sexual activity with a person to whom you're closely related is rape or molestation and incest. Consensual sexual activity with a person to whom you're closely related is consexual sexual activity and incest. We generally think of incest as always nonconsensual, but it isn't. Now, if we want to believe that consensual incest is also wrong, we've got to come up with a reason that two closely related people should not, under any circumstances, engage in sexual behavior. Outside of religion (and even that's sketchy), I can't find one.

Simply treat each hard case as sui generis.

Is that what you were getting at?

Sort of, but not exactly. I think we can come up with better categories than we do. Case in point being the incest blurb above. We've overgeneralized to the point that we look at only the surface of an issue and make a judgement on every activity that falls within it, even if it does not conflict with the underlying ethical standard used to make the judgement on the one activity within the larger that we consider bad.

I'll have to read the Bonhoeffer - thanks for the recommendation.