"Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone --a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive"

Meow!

C.F. Saudi thoughts on ice cream

http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_muttawa_archive.html#112645342071014672

very interesting blog, btw.

Has Leon Kass ever considered a post-retirement career in stand-up comedy?

Well, aren't we feeling a little smoldering resentment today? What, did poor Justin get personally snubbed by Kass? And we can't touch Kass personally because he couldn't care less about us and has a real job, so we snipe at random bloggers who give him one sentence of credit instead? Well, I'm honored that my two sentences have recieved such thorough scrutiny and close reading.

It's not quite clear to me why I should consult with my friends and family to ascertain Kass's sanity. Do you often ask your parents if your convictions look OK? If consensus is the standard however, you may be out of luck. It seems that many people agree with Kass. If we summarize your nicely contextualized snippets here, we will find that Kass thinks that: giving birth is a part of life, dying is a part of life, abortion might be bad (he's definitely alone on that one, yeah?), it is unusual not to have to experience the death of anyone you know in your lifetime, cloning is bad, etc. Crazy, I know!

Moreover, what kind of deranged lunatic claims individuals don't have rights to their own bodies? "...though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself..." What a nutjob that John Locke was.

But once I read the quote about ice cream, gosh, I just lost all respect for him! There is someone in this great country who thinks eating ice cream in public is unappealing? I am so offended I can barely move. He must be destroyed!

Sorry I said your thoughts were perky, Rita. That was uncalled for. For what it's worth, I only meant to make you a little bit mad, not hopping and blowing mad. Sincerest apologies.

However, since I DO have your attention now, perhaps you might honor me with answers to this impromptu survey?

Do you approve of the anti-research legislation referred to above?

If you do, do the penalties strike you as overly draconian, or just about right?

If, just as a for instance, medical science actually COULD extend your lifespan to 150 HEALTHY years, would you let it?

If not, why not?

Would you want your parents or friends to live that long?

Do you think it should be their decision, or the governments?

Do you think there's a realistic chance that Americans could be persuaded to abstain from such therapies?

Do you value the opinions and insights of your friends and relatives, or are you more of an intellectual soloist?

Does ANYTHING that Doctor Kass has said EVER, strike you as being iffy, or questionable?

If so, what?

And by the way, I would still love to know what your friends and relatives think of Doctor Kass and his notions.

Best Wishes, Justin

Destroyed? Leon Kass? I think he must be preserved! (He would disagree, but that's an eternal debate....)

The fact is, Classical Values got more hits from that Leon Kass ice cream quote than almost anything else in this blog's history -- the ice cream licking being only a close second to a beheading video post. (This is not to argue that there's any moral equivalency between ice cream and beheadings, of course....)

As you say, "we can't touch Kass personally because he couldn't care less about us and has a real job." How true.

Sigh.

I can't speak for Justin, but I'm wondering if there's any way for you to possibly get Dr. Kass to touch us? Surely it wouldn't take that much of his time to attack "Classical Values" by name, would it? I really could use the traffic, and I would be forever indebted.

Seriously, I'm blogrolling you now, because you're a free thinker, at a young age, and I think it's an admirable quality. Whether I agree with you is irrelevant.

:)

She's a feisty one.

I can't believe I forgot to include Ron Bailey's thought experiment. (Smacks forehead incredulously). Here's the scenario.

A fertility clinic has caught fire while you are visiting. There's a freezer with one hundred fertilized eggs in it. There's also a single small child. You can save one or the other, but not both. Which will it be?

Bonus question. If you chose to save the child, is there a specific number of eggs that would tip your decision the other way? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million eggs? Or will you always opt to save the toddler? Don't be shy.

Ooh! A pop quiz, how exciting! With essay questions! Are there word limits? Hold on a minute while I sharpen my pencil and number my paper.

1) I have no position on embryonic research.
2) See #1.
3) Not if life-extension was an end in itself. Over the 20th Century, the average life expectancy (though not life span) has been extended in developed nations, but that extension has been a by-product of medical technology and sanitation practice aimed at controlling specific diseases, largely those caused by external organisms. Diseases of old age (opportunistic infection not included) tend to be illnesses caused by internal breakdown of the body, a sign that the life expectency has caught up with the maximum life span. What medical science has done throughout history has been to assist this process of catching up, and now you suggest that we use medical science to override the barrier itself. But for what purpose? And what is the end of medical science if this is the case?

Acceptance of death is a central aspect of humanity--in both your quotes from Montaigne's Essays and Homer's Iliad above, you ignore the overarching argument being made for the sake of one or two lines taken out of context. The Iliad is a story that revolves around man's mortality; Achilles' triumph is his acceptance of death. It is what separates men from gods, whose immortality is put on display in Book I as a endless life of carnal pleasure in which nothing has any meaning. Hera and Zeus quarrel violently and then sleep together the same night. If you live forever, what is an argument worth? But the argument between Achilles and Agamemnon in the same book is epic precisely because they are men, they are mortal, and they therefore suffer deeply from all the afflictions of passion and pride. Insults matter to men. And the specter of mortality is the driving force behind the desire for glory and honor and fame. Otherwise, why bother? So if we're going to turn down our basic humanity for the sake of endless years living on near-starvation diets, there better be an extremely compelling reason. Do you have one? Is 150 years a magic number, or if we reach that, will we demand 250, and then 350 and so on?
4) Not as an end in itself, no.
5) It is not their personal decision unless they are coming up with the medical technology to extend their lives in their own basements. You're creating a false model of the distribution and use of technology in this country by ignoring the commercial sphere in which such technology is exchanged. This sphere is problematic because at one end stand experts and at the other stand laymen. This is the basic dilemma of industrial revolution-era progressivism. Why does the FDA exist at all? Shouldn't the process of deciding can be consumed be between buyer and seller alone?
6) Sure, why not?
7) I don't take their opinions as the final word. Do you?
8) Unfortunately, not being as eager a student of Kass as you seem to be, I can't claim wide-ranging knowledge of all his past pronouncements. My direct knowledge of him is limited to a summer internship, where I disagreed with him on some issues relating to the report the Council was working on, and he encouraged me to draft my concerns into the report and to present them to the staff. He was quite the opposite of the dogmatic sleazeball you make him out to be, but what can I say? You've spent years cataloguing his every word from afar. I've only encountered him in person. I wouldn't want to let my personal experience get in the way of your obviously greater erudition.
9) I'll be sure to put together a survey ASAP and get back to you with the results.

Now that is truly interesting. Which issues did you disagree on? I'd love to hear about them.

I'm eagerly awaiting your survey results. Also, I've been thinking of bumping this exchange up to the main page, so if you have any additional thoughts or arguments, they're welcome. Here's your chance to put me in my place. Convince me.

Now, about that fertility clinic fire scenario...I realize you're not all that fond of small children, so if you would prefer to substitute an unconscious lab tech (smoke inhalation, worse luck), feel free. What's key there is determining your own attitude toward the relative value of pre-natal vs. post-natal people. Gilbert Meilaender has said "It's not immediately apparent...that one choice must be made."

I hope he doesn't really believe that.

Do you know if he ever changed his mind? If you can find a substantiating cite, I'll put it up. Provide the appropriate URL, and I'll even link to it.

Also, you seem to have omitted your response to the question about realistic chances, persuasion and abstention.

If you should decide to continue this interchange, it needn't be a complete waste of your time. While I intend to be a hard sell, you could end up influencing who knows how many readers. Be a sport. Convince them I'm wrong.

If the notion appeals, you might want to consider dialing down your sarcasm level. It's not genuinely persuasive, and it might alienate the undecided middle ground. Just let me keep being the bad guy and you'll reap big dividends mindshare-wise, sailing serenely above the fray.
Naturally, that decision is entirely yours, so feel free to ignore my well meant suggestion.

Cordially,

Justin

It's not entirely clear what I should be convincing you of. If I recall correctly, my original post made two points: 1) I found Kass to be admirable and 2) FightAging is deluded. Now, it seems that an argument over Kass's character would be both a rather daunting prospect for us evidence-wise, and probably irrelevant and pointless. You might go in for the ad hominem arguments, which wouldn't surprise me, but they're nonetheless not likely to find much response. If you'd like to further explore the second point, then I suppose it's your turn to respond, not mine.

Unfortunately, being under the auspices of a government agency, information related to drafts of the Council's reports is confidential. Perhaps an unnecessary precaution, but they were nice enough to employ me, so I'll be nice enough to comply and not broadcast to the world. You'll just have to wait until the report is released for your next chance to trash Kass. It's hard; I know. But hang in there, I believe in you.

As for your thought experiment, it's not clear to me how this relates to a debate over stem-cell research or abortion or whatever the embryos are supposed to represent. It assumes that whatever the choice is, it's a zero-sum proposition. Now, the pro-life position is obviously not a zero-sum proposition. Preventing abortion does not automatically result in the death of developed humans. In the stem-cell research case, the implication is that merely allowing embryo destruction will lead automatically to the saving of lives. After all, we're not doing research on the person we save from a burning building to see if different rescue techniques might save him. We're just saving him. In addition, it assumes there are no other possible means to rescue this person EXCEPT to destroy embryos. Is that reflective of the real situation of medical research? Moreover, is there a principle to be found behind the result that most people (I assume) would choose the child? It strikes me that the principle is that majority instinct under duress is universal moral truth in all circumstances. How far are you willing to defend that proposition?

Unfortunately, I'm little inclined to respond cordially to you merely out of the largess of my heart. You might try being polite yourself, and then you might be surprised at how eagerly the world reciprocates. But I don't expect miracles, so don't strain yourself too hard.

"What medical science has done throughout history has been to assist this process of catching up, and now you suggest that we use medical science to override the barrier itself."

Yes, that's the general idea. Why is this surprising? For centuries we've been defeating nature's barriers. Exhibit A: your glasses.

"But for what purpose?"

Because life is like, good and stuff. For those who disagree, there are plenty of tall buildings around.

"Why does the FDA exist at all?"

In theory, to prevent unnecessary deaths due to unsafe products. Please explain what grounds they would have to ban a working life extension treatment. For extra credit, explain how such a ban would be morally distinguishable from mass murder.

I didn't intend to connect the FDA to the question of life extension therapy. My point was that the FDA serves as a mediator between the market and the consumer in order to prevent the consumer from being duped by the expert (and by duped, in this case, we mean poisoned). Your construction of the question of a "right" to private-sector technologies without government interference oversimplifies the Progressive-era problem that some of these technologies, if allowed to go straight from the producer to the consumer, would actually hurt consumers. ("Do you think it should be their decision, or the governments?") This is a misrepresentation of how the distribution of technology actually happens. It's not as though either you decide all on your own which chemicals to ingest, or the government forces them down your throat. The appropriate role of government regulation in technology is not obvious or simple, but that doesn't mean that either strict laissez-faire or a totally planned economy are better for their simplicity value.

Life is like good and stuff. Is it like good and stuff all the time? So, Terri Schiavo's life was like good and stuff, and she should've been kept alive on that basis? Or, a patient with advanced dementia should have ever medical effort, no matter how invasive, made to save him in his decline--bypass surgery, kidney transplant, etc--because his life is like good and stuff? Furthermore, how much life is good? Just 150 years? What if when we get there, we decide 350 sounds like a more satisfactory number? Why not 600? Eternity, maybe? On what basis are we deciding how much life is good enough?

The key, I think, is that the "I" who decides ". . .how much life is good enough" should be the individual (when possible.)

You (and Kass) clearly feel that the prospect of living longer than 150 years is unsettling. I would ask that you not make policy that actively works to prevent me from ever being in the position to need to decide how *I* feel about it!

And I suppose we're to ask Terri Schiavo how she feels about it? Or a dementia patient? Moreover, can you simply live as long as you will yourself to live, or would extension require you to use technology created by someone else? Because unless you're working out all those biological dilemmas in your own basement, it seems that at some point, this will necessarily involve commerce. How this affects your access to a technology and the degree of government regulation of it is open, but don't pretend that it's an entirely individual proposition.

Moreover, please do not mistake me for Kass. Despite our strikingly similar external appearances, we are not one and the same. I don't make or propose to make policy. You tread dangerous ground when you suggest that any argument about the morality of a proposition is akin to a legislative argument. It is an essentially relativist position that withholds all judgment based on the premise that each person knows what is good for him. What is immoral is not the same as what is or should be illegal. But it is still immoral, no?

"Life is like good and stuff. Is it like good and stuff all the time?"

No. But how about I decide whether my life continues to be worth living, rather than you or Kass.

"Furthermore, how much life is good? Just 150 years? What if when we get there, we decide 350 sounds like a more satisfactory number? Why not 600? Eternity, maybe?"

Works for me.

What is immoral is not the same as what is or should be illegal. But it is still immoral, no?

So now living past an arbitrary number of years is fundamentally immoral?

Again, that evades the question of incompetent patients. Who decides for them and on what basis?

Moreover, please let me know how you plan to decide. Since we're not talking policy, but the fundamental rightness of life extension (unless of course you believe that what is "right" is relative for each person, or is based purely on unreflective knee-jerk decision-making), and you're certain that life extension is good, I assume you have the standard for the good life figured out, and you have concluded that it requires eternal life to achieve. Such answers have only been evading philosophers since the 5th Century, and I'm sure they'd love to hear your conclusion. Please, do share.

Rita, I suggest a compromise. Next time someone is in Terri Schiavo's condition, why not allow scientists to conduct life extension research by keeping her alive as long as they can by trying out new techniques (like Klotho gene therapy)? There'd be no harm done to anyone, as she wouldn't be allowed to die. Would this not tend to rectify the karmic imbalance created by shortening Terri Schiavo's life? Plus, without any brain activity, there can be no claim made that scientists created an immortal being (any more than a blastomere can be called "immortal" for living in liquid nitrogen indefinitely.)

A win/win?

BTW, are you seriously suggesting that living too long should be regulated for having an effect on interstate commerce?

Wow, I slip off to the unemployment office for a few hours, and look what happens.

Hi Brian. Thanks for dropping by. Would you be the same Brian who used to leave comments along with Iron Sun and The Living Fractal, over at Chris's place? If so, let me just say I admired your level-headedness and practicality. Do you suppose Kadamose is still living in his parent's basement?

Rita, I'm sorry your experiences in Washington are classified. If you can think of any little anecdotes that wouldn't cross the line, feel free to share them. And I'm still looking forward to your survey results!

Looking at your answers to my questions, I'm struck by your conscientious inclusion of factors that I had simply failed to address. It has certainly been an eye-opener. But, more's the pity, mine is such a simple mind that I cannot handle a multi-factorial response. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a plodder.

Could we have a do-over?

In the interests of clarity, allow me to remove the "essay question" element. I'll add sufficient qualifiers to each question to remove any ambiguity. That way, a simple yes or no will suffice. I'll number them too...

1) If, in the coming years, laboratory research either public or private (or both!), led to the development and marketing of FDA-approved therapies which were safe, efficacious, and affordable...and if such therapies were easy to self-administer, and didn't require the use of controversial embryonic techniques, and even further, were expected to add several decades (six or seven, say) of healthy lifespan while also compressing morbidity, would you personally (and speaking only on your own behalf, not that of society) make use of those therapies?

Yes, or no?

2) If the above mentioned therapies arrived in time, would you want your parents to make use of them?

3) If the above mentioned therapies arrived in time, would you want your friends to make use of them?

4) If the above mentioned therapies arrive at all, do you think there is a realistic chance that most people could be persuaded to abstain from using them?

5) Regarding the burning clinic scenario, that too need not be an essay question. Given the admittedly arbitrary constraints of the scenario you have only three choices.

1) Save the baby.

2) Save the petri dishes.

3) Save neither.

So pick a number.

Don't be shy. You're not being graded. It's not a trick question, and you can't fail. I just want to know what your choice would be. It's actually a fairly important question, but not in the way you seem to expect. Much follows from it.

"So if we're going to turn down our basic humanity for the sake of endless years living on near-starvation diets, there better be an extremely compelling reason. Do you have one? Is 150 years a magic number, or if we reach that, will we demand 250, and then 350 and so on?"

Actually, I pulled the number 150 from Kass himself. The "I would be delighted" quote available above.

As to the near-starvation diets you mention, the hope would be that they're more of a clue to better things than a best possible solution. On the other hand, "we" don't need an extremely compelling reason to do anything together. Gorge or not, as you see fit. Are you seriously suggesting that people need a good excuse to seek a longer healthier life?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Now, you say that I portray Kass as a sleazeball, and I must protest. That's not a word that I would ever associate with him. For readers old enough to remember the Watergate Hearings, the term "overzealous" may trigger a fond smile. I think that comes closer to my sense of the man.

Your admiration for him may have blinded you to this, but I have actually played (relatively) fair with Dr. Kass. More often than not, I've provided links to his own works, or the works of those who approve of him. Should a reader wish to ignore my sophomoric jibes and go form their own opinion, they are perfectly free to do so.

Wonder of wonders, I've even acknowledged his good qualities. Once or twice, anyway. Do I have to do it again? How often would satisfy you?

Indeed, the core of your animosity seems to stem from my lack of respect for him, not from any disagreement over facts or interpretation. Unlike many of his critics, I have actually taken the trouble to read him, and then to take his opinions seriously.

I just think that some of them are pernicious. If implemented, I think they would be bad for the country.

My sense of your tacit, unarticulated argument is that if I would just shut up and acknowledge his manifest superiority, all would be well. He is, after all smarter than me. Well, brains aren't everything. Integrity counts for something too.

More later, I promise. But for now, Mom is making me take out the trash.

Don't let your mother work you too hard, Mr. Case.

Her days of haughty oppression are nearly done. Once that job at the meat-packing plant comes through, I'll be able to move out of the basement and get a place of my own. Then, oh yes, THEN, I'll live like a meat-packing philosopher king!

Remember me to the gang at the watercooler!