ArmandoAlvarez wrote:

I heard a story on the radio about researchers who want to create chimeras of humans and non-human animals so that they could grow human organs (for transplantation) in, for example, sheep or pigs.  They started getting into the ethical debates about this, but it got me wondering:

Supposing someone did insert human genes into a (non-human) animal, or animal genes into a human, how would you know whether it had a rational soul or rights?  Presumably, inserting a single human gene into an animal doesn't necessarily give it a rational soul, or the E. coli that have been given human genes to produce insulin would have rational souls.  Similarly, inserting a single gene from a pig into a human wouldn't take away that person's rational soul.

If the scientist presents us with a human/pig chimera that has substantial genes from both species, how do we know whether it has a rational soul?  We can't just test its reasoning ability; some humans are incapable of reasoning yet have rational souls.  So how do we know?

(I guess the question would also apply if we met an alien species.)

Let's be explicit about a few necessary assumptions which enable the discussion in the first place.

- The soul enlivens the body in a real sense. The body cannot have life, biology and physiology without a soul.
- The soul integrates the mind and personality with the body.
- Animals have animal souls. Humans have human (rational) souls. These two are distinct and not interchangeable.

From the last point it follows that when human genes are injected into an animal or when human organs are transplanted to an animal, this does not make the animal a human. Rather, the animal soul absorbs the human organ/genes as per animal nature. This may occur with or without pathological complications, given some specifics such as compatibility of gene/blood types etc.

When the human organ has matured in an animal and gets transplanted to a human body who happens to need it, this

DanielCC wrote:

There any many other such vices we would think to discourage but not to illegalise for both practical and ethical reasons.

There's a subtle but fundamental problem with this statement. Are laws and social attitudes pro and against anything simply because we think to discourage/promote things or are the things we discourage/promote worth discouraging/promoting per se, regardless what we think? The most solid form of such discouragement/promotion is laws, but not exclusively.

It seems to me that you allow no space at all for natural law in your reasoning. As such, much of what you say has no apparent purpose.

DanielCC wrote:

It's also not that clear that something's merely being a vice constitutes its being an injustice and thus subject to judical retribution.

If by "vice" we mean the same thing, there should be nothing unclear here. It can only be unclear if you actually have no concept of vice. Maybe you think about vice in terms of picking one's nose or something.

DanielCC wrote:

seigneur wrote:

So, we are more concerned about the individual's subjective happiness and not social harmony? Are you saying that there is no social dimension to sexual behaviour? Is there a good argument to establish this or is it just an assumed unchallengeable presupposition?

As far as happiness is a state pertaining to a cognitive subject then all happiness is 'subjective' (so I suspect is the 'harmony' element in 'social harmony' unless one wants to admit a harmonious society could be made up of zombies). Note that I am not defending Poe's account as such just pointing out this evident fact.

Good that you are not defending Poe's account, because by this argument (viz., all happiness is 'subjective') his account becomes utterly indefensible. If happiness is entirely subjective, then there's no reason to attribute any social value to it and the lawmaker can, when considering e.g. sodomy laws, completely ignore happiness as a fact

Jason wrote:

Are there any popular level books that one could recommend people who know little to nothing or have an incorrect prespective on Christianity? 

"Incorrect perspective" can mean too many things. I would say that it's an incorrect perspective to consider polemics against or refutations of incorrect perspectives as something suitable for popular level.

A positive case is the best case. Popular level Christian material that lays out a positive case with minimal polemics is for example catechisms and Sunday school textbooks. They don't tell you (much) about classical  theism, but they are suitable when you are really unfamiliar with Christianity. I would also recommend an overview of philosophy of religion or comparative religious studies.

iwpoe wrote:

I think the argument would properly be that it was included on unscientific grounds in the first place, not that subsequent research "found" that something "known" about homosexuality wasn't so.

And what was the unscientific ground? In what way was it unscientific?

iwpoe wrote:

seigneur wrote:

If the changes in medical views and laws were motivated only by "appeal to experience", they were totally unmotivated.

As opposed to all that medical research that isn't based on experience?

Originally, the "appeal to experience" in this thread meant the experience of the homosexuals: They *feel* that their love is the same as heterosexual, therefore it is, must be...

Would you base your medical diagnosis purely on the patient's announcement that she feels okay or would you do some medical examination to determine the matter? In the case of homosexuals, society has decided that the patient's subjective experience is the sole determining factor. Somehow we fail to reason the same way with any other illness, crime, or vice. We have some work to do to apply our newly found reasoning consistently.

Scott's demise a tough loss to the forum. He consistently made the most informative comments to educate people on A-T philosophy, of which he had an in-depth grasp. Scott was the best that Dr. Feser's fan club had on offer. He is irreplaceable.

May he rest in peace. May the forum continue as a solidly committed resource for A-T philosophy and classical theism in his honour.