They are also missing the cerebrum, which means all they have is a brain stem. The brain stem controls breathing, heartbeat and some pain response. But there is no "person" in there. There will never be a person in there. You can call what is left over whatever you like, it will never make it a living, functioning human being.
Huh? It is living and breathing. It was birthed from a human. All objective science shows it being human. And now, you want to introduce the subjective concept of "personhood?"
Nah, I think I'll just stick with what
science can prove and shy away from such
subjective standards when it comes to defining humanity. It may not be in my
self-interest to do so, given the ability to harvest stem cells & other body parts from severely malformed newborns, but the science is backed by empirical data and sound, repeatable methodology.
Again,
if it is not human, what is it? Biology has a taxonomy used to classify organisms and show their interrelatedness. Where does this not-human reside in the taxonomy?
Also, you write of a "functioning human being." Do you believe that lack of particular functions remove one from the human to the other-than-human state? You might find an ally in RAH:
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes bathe, and not make messes in the house."
----Robert A. Heinlein
The opposite of science is not faith, it is
pseudo-science. I place a great store in empirical science/data and the methodology used to derive it. Not just because my livelihood depends on it, but because the uses pseudo-science has been put to the last 200 years, usually nefarious, many times infamous.
Perhaps what you have called "enlightened self interest" is less a
moral code and more an
amoral code? Meaning: it has no grounding in anything, to include science, and is more a means to an objective than a guide to conscience.
Again, you seem to be saying that without a Biblical moral system genocide and travesty is the natural outcome. I simply do not see evidence of that. China has cities dating to 4800BC, when the Jews were still living in huts. They had no concept of your god, and their society was not a giant ball of human travesty.
Again, "huh?" Where did I mention religion or Christianity in the post?
Well, if you look at the way the Chinese from back then treated humans, had such treatment applied to your own self, you'd think it a travesty.
Your example is perfect! How long do you think the average life span of an African warlord is? How happy do you think he is? How likely is it that his children will thrive after the next dictator murders him?
Robert Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980. His children and wife have access to his overseas funds and he owns properties outside of Africa. He & his will do alright.
Muammar Gaddafi has ruled Libya since 1969. He has a whole bunch of kids, money, and plenty of property outside of Libya.
Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt since 1981. Like above, his kids will do fine after he is gone.
Idi Amin rule Uganda fro ~10 years and then left and spent the rest of his life in luxury in Saudi Arabia.
Omar Bongo ruled Gabon from 1967-2009. He had 30+ children, so I doubt
all of them will enjoy hte riches he accumulated...but some goodly number will.
I could go on, but there are many that rule a goodly number of years, accumulate wealth, and secure the fortunes of their progeny. Enough to make it worth the risk by many sharp-witted and ruthless folk to emulate them.
Here is another nice turn of phrase, that deals with the accusation that secular societies lead to crimes against humanity:
Sam Harris:
"The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
Like I said, a proper secular morality is not dogmatic, will accept change, and is capable of self-analysis without being defensive. Because the system is based on evidence, evidence can be used to change it.
Sorry, but Sam Harris is a pinhead who displays historical ignorance in the literary equivalent of neon lights and gets lauded for it, for some reason beyond my ken.
Adolf Hitler was not tied to any particular political philosophy and
changed policy as it became advantageous to do so, be it economic, social, whatever. The Nazis hated homosexuals, right, what with the pink triangle & such? Well, not originally. The leader of the SA and his subordinates were mostly homosexual. When they became political threats and AH wanted them taken out, things changed, and out came the long knives.
Lenin, too, was to analyze the situation and change his policy accordingly. A fine example being the re-privatization of some farmland to avert famines caused by collectivization. That was contrary to Marxist-Leninist dogma, but he did it anyway.
