Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 23:00:11 EST
Subject: Re: HAB: "On The Way to Liberal Eugenics?" 



--part1_bb.1650fa2b.2916174b_boundary

In a message dated 10/29/2001 4:25:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com writes:

>So, I don't believe that JH is wrong about most of his discursive
>views, but the research basis for those views is outdated (Piaget,
>Mead, Peirce-let alone JH's passion to bring Kant into the 20th
>century). 

This simply is just not a sum of Habermas' sources.  This is not a 
responsible statement. Sorry.

>Ultimately, JH is an exemplar in a discourse that belongs to a
>community (The Philosopher is no longer positioned to remain a
>discursive Center, like a Kant or a Hegel, but remains a leading
>participant in various discursive formations. But what is the name of
>that discursive formation?). 

I agree that JH is an exemplar in a discourse, but not in the community.  No 
one that I work with or am in contact with on even an infrequent basis have 
ever even heard of JH.  JH's work is privy to a select group of 
intellectuals.  Mentioning that you are a Habermas scholar just does not cut 
any mustard.  People are excessively cruder and less educated than our 
typical assumptiveness presumes.  The real underlying issues in JH's work 
pertain to the pervasiveness of strategic interaction (Kohlberg's stage 2 of 
moral development) and communicative competency.  The name of the discursive 
formation that can and does utilize JH's philosophy is social justice.
JH is for judges.

> 13--- asserting an unclear ethics of the species as deontological
> when regulative moral argument is not yet compelling; 
> 
> 
When JH used the term species, several ideas occured  to me.  In evolutionary 
biology, the theme of speciation is critical for understanding evolution: how 
do species change.  The usual explanations are natural selection and genetic 
drift, but these theories do not explain where the initial variations came 
from, namely, mutations, crossing over during meiosis, and sexual selection.  
So, what acts on these mechanisms?  Speciation, or the changing of a species 
into another species, or group of species is attributed primarily to 
reproductive isolation which is caused by any of these three isolating 
events: geographical change, behavioral change, changes in mating season.   
These same factors may also account for subspecies differentiation.  
Altogether, this group of factors accounts for the changes in the 
population's gene pool.  Of course, I am leaving a lot out, but now we have a 
new force to reckon with: biotechnology which gives us additional 
decision-making power over the quality of life.  Consider the statistics 
related to mental health,
chromosomal abnormality,  and childhood diseases that are potentially 
identifiable
during the germinal stage of development, roughly off the top of my head, 
over 20% of the population!  None of this discription refers to social 
differentiation by class, ethnicity, gender, status, etc.  From a strictly 
biological perspective, species change is regulated by mutation and sexual 
selection - that essentialist chestnut that resists efforts for political 
change like social integration mechanisms.  Now, with the surging influence 
of biotechnology the demographics of the population could shift perceptibly
in any number of directions depending on the competency of both the  biotech 
industry and the public.  Where I think the critics of JH are mistaken is in 
the taking up of claims concerning the subject-object dialectic: all objects 
including the self are objectifications, merely representations, and 
therefore subjective.  The thing-in-itself
is the subject.  I hardly consider this a Kantian perspective: that which is 
knowing cannot be known (time-space-causality are only known by their 
representations).  The question is: will the subject which is Homo sapiens 
change due to biotechnological interventions?  This question bears upon the 
moral and the ethical
is different ways.  Morality refers to what is right and is rule oriented 
(yes the law and morality are the same), ethics refers to what is fair given 
the foundational equality of each individual.  Will decisions made during 
genetic counseling, gene therapy, basic research, etc. adversely effect the 
race?  particular groups?  particular organs?

FWelfare




--part1_bb.1650fa2b.2916174b_boundary

HTML VERSION: