IME Grant Application

These are the two short essays I wrote for my grant application from the Institute of Medical Ethics. The first is a proposal for a topic of interest and the latter a personal statement covering my reasons for choosing Medical Ethics. I have held these essays back for quite some time, partly not to tempt fate and partly because doing so seemed (dare I say it) MORE self-indulgent than my normal posts.

Nonetheless I am more than curious for feedback and have made a promise to myself to post as much of what I write as is humanly possible.

Does Fairness mean Equality?

By striving for fairness are we undermining the very purpose of fairness?

The principle of equality has deep historical and cultural roots. The idea that “every man is born equal” is both attractive and iconic. There is however a fallacy here, which is that no man is born equal. There are inherent characteristics imbued at birth (and subsequently during development) that make this idea incoherent.

Equality is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “The condition of being equal in quantity, amount, value, intensity, etc.” The suggestion here is that equality means uniformity. This is not only undesirable, but impossible. No two organisms can have the same makeup and occupy the same place in space and time. There are always advantages conferred by these differences that make complete equality unworkable. Human society consists of even greater differences: those of genetics, gender, ethnicity, class, social background and countless others. These differences cannot be ignored for they can determine the course of one’s life dramatically, and - depending on one’s views of free will – they can be outside an individual’s control.

This complex philosophical question is difficult to answer, and beyond the scope of this essay. However, studying empirical evidence, it is clear that there is a strong correlation (of varying degrees) between many of these factors and many health and social problems.

This is mostly acknowledged in healthcare, and common sense has dismissed dogmatic ideas of uniformity and universality. It would be ridiculous for instance to provide cervical screening to male patients. However there is the potential to widen this principle beyond the simple remit of obvious differences.

There have been attempts to provide fairness through inequality on a socio-political level through policies of Affirmative Action. There is debate over the ethical implications of these policies, both from a practical and moral perspective. The moral argument can be reduced to ideas of reverse discrimination. On the practical side, it is argued that these policies change public perceptions so fundamentally that they undermine the very objectives attempted to be reached.

In contrast, there is also the potential that actions like this could help redistribute resources to where they are most needed. When visiting a General Practitioner in Lewisham I was told that screening attendance was far lower there than in other, more affluent, areas of the country. The interventions for those conditions were therefore less successful as diagnosis was delayed. It might be fairer to invest more in encouraging individuals from these areas to attend screenings. However, it was the GP’s opinion that it was the responsibility of those who did not attend and further investment from an already overstretched service is not justified.

The ability for society to accept these ideas is heavily influenced by resource availability. In the current climate there is increased strain on resources in healthcare and the country as a whole. Deciding how these resources should be distributed will be increasingly more important in healthcare in the near future.

There are clearly differing views within society of what real justice is. Ideas vary between individuals and parties. It is possible that by doing away with certain ideas of equity, society can actually become fairer by appreciating differences and aiming to counteract their negative effects.

Whilst this may sound rather attractive on paper, there are clear issues in translating ethical principles into ethical practice. As with any principle it will not be interpreted nor applied identically by every individual. There will always be those who, willingly or unwillingly, misuse the idea to justify actions that undermine its very purpose.

Equality is a core belief within our society, regardless of its flaws. It is deeply ingrained into almost every citizen’s understanding of social justice. Policies that suggest favouritism of certain groups over others could easily challenge this understanding to such a degree that the principle is invalidated. It might be better to accept the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

It is possible to be so consumed by making an idea work in theory that it loses its practical use. Amartya Sen famously criticised Rawls (and others) in The Idea of Justice for ascribing to what he named “transcendental institutionalism” – the search for a perfect notion of justice. Justice is a complex, imperfect entity and establishing a real connection between theory and practice is of key importance.

Reasons for choosing Medical Ethics

Medical ethics is an essential part of clinical practice. It is within this specialty that we are most able to address the dilemmas that arise in the healthcare profession and question what ought to be done.

The deeper I have explored, the more I have learnt that the practice of medicine is far more muddled than is often acknowledged, particularly in discussions at student level. The reality involves constant debate over practice and conflicts arise between many parties: between patients and doctors; between doctors and their peers; and between doctors and the government. Each group has a different set of priorities and there is rarely complete agreement over any major healthcare policy decision.

This is exacerbated by the fact that some doctors do not perform their role as well as they could. My experience in the clinical setting as both a patient and a student has been varied in this regard. Many (if not most) doctors performed their roles admirably and undoubtedly supported their patients to the best of their abilities. However, this is not universal and some doctors clearly performed better than others. I have encountered more than one doctor who appeared self-interested and dismissive of their patients’ feelings and concerns. I have even heard stories from my peers of doctors performing actions that are clearly negligent and unprofessional.

These are not isolated events; in fact Medicine is no stranger to scandal. Throughout history there are cases of questionable ethical decision-making by those at even the highest levels of authority. Most notorious of course are the Nazi experiments during the Second World War and the consequent Doctors’ Trials in Nuremberg. There are however more recent examples: those of Baby P and the Staffordshire Hospital Crisis have demonstrated the potential for repeated failure on multiple levels of the healthcare service.

With such potential, I feel a keen sense of duty as a future medical practitioner to learn the skills necessary for good clinical judgement – not only for my patients’ sakes, but to feel comfortable with the decisions I make.

This is my long term goal, but there is an immediate sense of gratification that can be felt by pursuing this study. I take great interest in ethical issues and relish attempting to understand complex problems and find practical solutions to ethical dilemmas. Decisions are made in a constantly changing socio-political landscape. There are many variables that can alter how decisions are made: There can be changes in resources themselves (such as changes to NHS funding); changes of social values (such as those of assisted suicide and mental health); and also due to advances in technology (bioethical issues). I already take an individual interest in all of these matters and being able to integrate them into my thought process is something I enjoy.

In my spare time I love to write and maintain a blog (www.sharkattack-i.blogspot.com) in which I try to explore many of the issues that I find myself musing over. I try to cover a broad range of topics, but most of my writings focus on key interests of ethics, politics and film.

I am also a member of the KCL Film Society and Debating Society; both of which provide the opportunity to express my opinion, as well as listen to opinions completely different to my own. Debating also offers the unique opportunity to argue opinions from a viewpoint that one doesn’t hold - something which helps foster a deeper understanding of other views, as well as improving one’s reasoning and oratorical skills.

I hope that when I complete the course I will have gained skills to make effective decisions in clinical practice, as well as having broadened my mind by sharing my views with other interested students. I have no doubt that this will be the case.

Views on Pornography

I was recently directed to a BBC News article covering a survey on the consumption of pornography in adults aged 18-24. The study showed an overwhelming prevalence in the use of internet pornography - something hardly surprising in the digital age.

The issue of pornography is a difficult one to discuss as it involves many different levels. A line can be drawn between two categories of arguments: problems in the production of pornography (i.e. the subjects of pornographic material) and the viewing of pornography (i.e. the viewer). I personally have no problem with people having sex on film, but the production and distribution should be (and are) controlled - at very least to some degree.

Pornography and erotica have existed (as far as I know) for hundreds of years. Japanese Shunga, the Kama Sutra and early erotic fiction have all been used to evoke erotic feelings in their viewers/readers. They have also been considered - at one point or another - graphic, lewd and improper; ultimately resulting in censorship. Modern attempts at censorship in the UK have been mostly unsuccessful. The Earl of Longford's famous campaign of the 1970s subjected him to much ridicule.

The dawning of the digital age has vastly increased the access to pornographic material - particularly free material. As covered in the aforementioned article, this has lead to a surge in viewership by young adults, both male and female. The survey suggested an association between high consumption of pornography and 'worry'. The link seems sound - at least in the sample group - but determining a causal relationship is challenging. It is equally reasonable, based on this evidence, to suggest that worrying about relationships causes people to use more pornography.

Nonetheless it is unlikely that any such study is able to determine causality of psychological harm as this is notoriously difficult to do. I would hypothesise that both have some impact in different individuals. It is also worth noting that any medium that can so strongly influence a critical component of human interaction (i.e. sex) comes with some danger. Accurately assessing this risk is near impossible and so raw opinion drives much of the debate over pornography.

My view is that creative sexual expression is an essential part of modern society. I believe the definition of pornography often includes the caveat of "no literary or artistic value", but I don't know if I can so clearly draw the line between art and non-art. As I discuss here I am not entirely sure most modern art has much 'artistic value'.

Nonetheless, normal sexual development should involve some form of exploration. Pornography and erotica provide a convenient medium for this, without carrying the risks (emotional or medical) of normal sexual interaction. However, much like any fantasy, the problem lies in adequately distinguishing between this fantasy and reality. The (often deliberate) misrepresentation of reality is a endemic problem in our society: unhealthy body shapes are flaunted on catwalks, violence is glorified in cinema and junk food is [was] advertised to children. Frankly, the list is endless. We are all bombarded with images and representations of lives and lifestyles that have the potential to cause us harm.

Understanding (and controlling) these elements is an overwhelming challenge and one subject to constant iteration through social change. With regards to pornography there seems a worrying trend in its use by younger audiences [1][2]. Children are naturally more susceptible to the detrimental effects of such material and yet internet pornography has no real way of determining how old its viewer is. With such overwhelming access, regulation becomes more important and yet more difficult.

This is particularly worrying as more extreme pornography is increasingly available. The representations/connotations of violence, submission and imbalance are of particular concern. This also creates an added risk for the performers in the industry - an issue covered less than I would like. Pornography carries many risks and, whilst far less than sex workers, it carries dangers of infection, financial insecurity, coercion, manipulation and even emotional/sexual abuse.

These issues are all important, but I would like to end with a call for better perspective as is often lost with such heavily-debated issues. It seems that pornography has become a lightning rod for discussions over free speech and sexual conformity. There are many areas in which various media have the potential to cause substantial sociological and psychological damage. It is my belief that harmony is best maintained by ensuring moderation in the consumption and the regulation of this material - perhaps an obvious but nonetheless important point.

Discussing Justice

It seems justice has been on my mind. This has been somewhat exacerbated by the presence of Malcolm Sandel's series [simply entitled 'Justice'] on iPlayer. This series of lectures has highlighted to me several flaws within our way of thinking about Justice. It possible that my views on this point are deeply and unfairly critical but (in the spirit of these posts) I shall pursue regardless.

I suppose the first key flaw I noticed was the fragmented nature of our discussions about morality and legality. These two concepts, whilst overlapping have very different ramifications. It's perhaps best to start by defining these two concepts as I see them: morality as the subjective belief of what is right/wrong; legality as an attempt to translate subjective moral beliefs into 'objective' rules for practical application.

I doubt many would disagree with my definition of morality, but I suspect some might disagree with the ideas defining legality. If only because it does not state whose moral beliefs and what the application actually is. I leave these aspects unclear because currently I don't think we have adequate answers for them.

I mentioned in a previous post that I question the purpose of our legal system. In part because there seems an incomplete connection between this idea of legality and the resultant consequences. I have had many conversations regarding the legalities of an act, but rarely do these conversations cross over into the realm of sentencing or imprisonment.

This strikes me as irrational. Personally I see these final steps as more important than prosecution. I will (as ever) demonstrate my point using hyperbolic analogies. Let's take two acts that are equally illegal: theft and murder. If the murderer were given community service and the thief given life imprisonment, it's unlikely that many would see justice as being served. In this example, the important aspect is not the legality of the act, but what is done with the criminal as a result of that illegality. Murder is worse than theft and therefore the murderer deserves a hasher sentence.

To apply this principle to more contested scenarios, I will mention one that has been previously presented to me: A young woman is terminally ill and begs her mother to end her suffering. The mother searches for an alternate way to assist her daughter without having to end her life and after months of seeing her daughter in agony, she finally gives in to her request and helps her end her life.

My understanding is that under English law assisted suicide is still murder. Regardless of legality, I cannot see what the purpose is of jailing someone for such a crime. The mother does not seem to pose any risk to society, she has not taken any life unwillingly nor against the wishes of any other members of her family. Calling her crime murder means she is judged alongside other murderers, whose crimes I consider far worse and far more dangerous.

The defendant is described as a "devoted mother" acting out of love, rather than malice or disrespect for the lives of others. The key issues for me are: what bad would become of letting her walk free and what could be gained by prosecution, other than the dogmatic implementation of the law?

I suppose now is the time to return to the question of why the law exists. There are of course many ways of implementing the law: fines, prisons, community service, etc. What principles do we believe these fulfil? Do we aim to punish criminals, to prevent crime or to protect citizens becoming the subjects of crime?

Answering these questions seems critical in assessing the validity of our justice system. I personally see little value in punishment, but place great value in prevention and protection. I have previously expressed these views in my post about the prison system.

Using legality as the centre of any argument about a legal case seems unfitting. Really we should talk about what we think should happen as a result.

Prisons

I am no fan of the prison system. I believe its primary aims are to punish criminals and segregate them from mainstream society in order to protect the majority. The effect of this is to create social environments formed entirely of those who are also criminals. This effect is hardening and only makes it more difficult to integrate with society upon release.

Often this social alienation can be one of the precipitating factors in crime to begin with, so acts that blatantly exacerbate this seem very short-sighted. Re-offending rates are high with a tendency for crimes to increase in severity. The effect also spreads - children with family members who've been in prison are multiple times more likely to commit crimes themselves.

I am much more in favour of programmes that target those at risk of committing crime and preventing them ever entering the prison system. The earlier the better. That essentially means tackling poverty, improving welfare and revolutionising the education system. These are expensive measures - ones which few are truly willing to pay for.

The sad truth is that most can escape crime more easily by economic means and thus are presented with a far cheaper option than paying ludicrous amounts of tax - they can simply move to a safer area.

Those who suffer as a result are those already being failed by the state. Poverty is the source for both the criminals and the greatest victims of crime.

There are possible alternatives to prisons in the form of restorative justice, however the argument is hardly won in the political arena. Many doubt the efficacy of such schemes. Whilst the jury may be still be out (no pun intended) I reserve my right to hate prisons regardless.

Art

For some reason in a discussion I noticed in myself a frustration when hearing mention of Art (in this sense I'm purely talking about art displayed in galleries). Whilst I've certainly never found myself enamored with the medium I didn't notice such strong, stark, negative feelings in me before.

I suppose this post will most likely constitute a bit of a rant, but there are certain elements of my vastly unfair and irrational criticism that might have some legitimacy. Let me be clear, my problems with the medium lie less in its value as creative expression, but rather with the 'art world'.

It's perhaps best to start with the oddity that put me down this road of thought in the first place. In art I feel there is a great need (seemingly greater than any other medium) for uniqueness. Galleries pay millions to hang paintings, to show sculptures and to display installations created by the original artist. Whilst it may be worth paying for a first edition or original manuscript of a famous book, the intention is certainly that these works were meant to be distributed - the wider the better. Copying a novel, poem or film doesn't depreciate the value of the art itself, only the physical vehicle by which it is delivered.

Somehow this principle is reversed in the art world. The physical 'vehicle' is seemingly more important than any other identical copy. Even an indistinguishably similar forgery is worth infinitely less than the original, regardless of the emotion it evokes in the onlooker.

Conversely an undetected forgery is somehow worth exactly the same as the original. Only when its authenticity is assessed - using increasingly complicated techniques - does the value ever come into question.

There seems to be a necessary amount of self-denial required to make this system work - a false importance needed to be injected by the viewer, rather than a universal importance.

This question of the importance of authenticity and historicity is addressed - and in my opinion, adequately answered - in the Philip K Dick novel, The Man in the High Castle. The creation of art has greater value than the objects which physically embody this value and the connection we place in the object is subjective: seeing Lincoln's top hat might be significant because Lincoln wore it, but the hat itself has no value - after all, it is just a hat. It did not free the slaves nor perform the Gettysberg address nor die in a theatre. However, it does serve the purpose of an emotional conduit, through which we can feel a connection to its famous owner. We search, perhaps naively, for a connection to the long-gone subject through the object.

For all my ranting, I don't have any problem with this. Ultimately the connection we feel is genuine and important. For instance, I would never take away the mementos of a long dead friend for the purile reason of it not being 'real'.

However, what I do take issue with is the monetary valuing of this commodity; this emotional connection. A process that ultimately strikes me as incredibly undemocratic.

To make a(~nother) preposterous analogy, if Bill Gates, or any other infinitely rich person, were to buy the only copy of a literary work to form part of their private collection, there would be uproar. Ok, maybe not if it were Russell Brands Bookey Wook, but for virtually any text with remote artistic value, this would be shocking.

It is my belief that techonolgy will provide the ultimate liberation of Art from the shackles of oligarchical economic control. After all, it is the invention of the printing press that allow William Tyndale to take advantage and disseminate great works to the public. This act was of course illegal and Tyndale's punishment was infamously dire. We owe much as a society to the sacrifice he and others made.

I also read (rather fondly) that it was acts of literary piracy that allowed the spread of the works of Robert Louis Stevenson abroad to Australian and American readers, where he received his greatest fame and praise.

I am also at this point inclined to once again mention The Man in the High Castle, in which the fictional novel, The Grasshopper Lies Heavy is spread both illegally and widely.

To draw more modern parallels, it is the internet that has allowed widespread distribution of digital media. So perhaps, one day, we will wonder around virtual art galleries, where every man woman and child can hold a great work of art in their hands; barriers of distance or cost long dissolved. Perhaps we will wonder what it must've been like to live in a world so restricted.

Rant OVER and out.

Money and Justice

I feel very uneasy with the regularity with which we use the idea of money as a proxy for all reward and punishment. I much rather systems that provide more tangible, direct consequences. Ultimately money has no intrinsic value - it is purely a means to an end (i.e. to buy something else you need). Taking money out of the equation means that the gains are far more straight-forward.

However, I am certainly not against money per se. It is an incredibly useful system that in fact forms one of the major foundations upon which civilisation has been built. Without money and the universal value of goods and services, long-distance trade is near impossible. As a society and civilisation we owe a lot to money.

Nevertheless, I do believe there is a case to be made in highlighting an over-reliance on money, to the point where real value is lost.

As you may have guessed from the title, this thought process led me to thinking about the fundamentals of our justice system (good segue!). It's no real shock to highlight the illogical connection between money and justice.

Our legal system is supposedly based on ideals of fairness. Yet, there are of course many other factors in determining the success in any case - many of which can be greatly improved by having a baJILLion dollars! Rich people can afford better lawyers, they can pay higher fines and (with enough money) they can even bribe the judge...These may not all be strictly legal, but they are certainly possible.

I don't see it as my place to comment on the more criminal solutions to legal problems as I'm sure condemnation is unnecessary, but I do wonder about the other two - particularly the idea of fines and legal payments in general.

My first thought was to question what the purpose of fines actually is. There are three major reasons I can see for fines being useful. On the more pragmatic side the money can be used to repair any damage caused by the original offence and cover any legal fees. There's also the fact that fines can be a significant deterrent to those who wish to commit crimes and finally, the fine can serve as punishment to those who commit the crime.

It's in these last two that I see a real problem. Assuming the fine for a crime is flat, surely someone with more money is simply less affected than others with less. I can't imagine a £50 fine being anything less than a slap on the wrists for someone with enough money to pay. Upping the fine only exaggerates the effects. For say a £50,000 fine it might mean bankruptcy to some and pocket change to others.

It is perhaps inappropriate to apply the principles used in one's personal life to such a large scale problem, but on the rare occasion when I have to lay the smackdown, I would almost always tailor the punishment to both fit the 'crime' and the individual. A mismatch between the two can often lead to suboptimal smackdownage and increased reoffending rates.

Forgive me for taking the analogy so far, but I do feel unconvinced that the principles driving the use of fines are best fulfilled by flat rates. The punishment for the same crime can be arbitrary and miniscule for some and life-changing for others.

The idea that subsequently popped into my head was 'means-tested fines'. Ok, so I'm not totally serious about this idea, but it does strike me as interesting. Even more so because I've heard no mention of anything similar. If fines were 'means-tested' they would be adjusted to be more in-line with a proportion of income/assets rather than fixed values. The punishment would be in line with the amount of difficulty it causes for the perpetrator.

I see several problems with this idea. It relies on accurately calculating the income of the defendant in any civil/criminal case. This would most likely be costly, lengthy and widely open to loophole abuse. The very people the change is meant to target would also be best equipped to evade excess payment.

Nevertheless, on a more theoretical level, it seems to make a lot more sense. It would certainly feel more 'fair' to pay proportional to your income.


ADDENDUM:

Just to illustrate what kind of poorly researched toss I write, here are two articles illustrating the existence of the principle in Finland and also previous proposals to have it introduced here. I'm not sure whether it ever was implemented, but the Telegraph complained about it (no surprises there).

The Ethics of Stem Cells

I've recently been studying iPS (induced pluripotent stem cells) - cells reprogrammed from a mature state to mimic human embryonic stem cells. Theoretically this means any cell in the body can be modified to differentiate into any other - a technique that can be used to grow specific cells, tissues or even whole organs. Their therapeutic potential is near endless.

Specifically, iPS cells are touted as the ethically sound alternative to using human embryos for experimentation and treatment. Most moral objections with stem cell experimentation revolve around the idea of using foetal tissue. Countless arguments exist, but I will simplify these (forgive me) under "rights to life". The embryo destroyed could be the next President or Einstein - what right do we have to prevent this?

iPS cells are not obtained from fertilised eggs but they are capable of producing cells from every germ layer of the relevant organism. In theory, this also means that if uninterrupted they will grow into a clone of the original cell donor [For the more science inclined reader: these cells may not be totipotent and without a placenta or host these embryos cannot be viable, but this is mostly true of embryonic stem cells too].

What is the difference between the human embryo and the man-made one? The only difference is origin, not potential. Are naturally created embryos in any way superior to their artificial counter-parts? Do they deserve different treatment?

I find myself thinking if something looks, swims and quacks like a duck then isn't it a duck? Surely this organism, regardless of source, has the same right to life as any other fertilised egg? Personally, my belief is that embryos have no rights at all, but the double standard seems unreasonable.

Thoughts on Consciousness

I've killed several insects recently. For some reason this has left me with a strange, but small, sense of guilt. It's probably very revealing about the inner workings of my psyche that this event and emotion have made me all philosophical.

First I placed myself in the 'shoes' of this mosquito, happily flying around, looking forward to its next meal - probably a nice quart of my fresh blood. Of course, this 'empathy' was deeply flawed. The mosquito cannot be 'happy' for it lacks the central nervous system needed to feel this emotion. Nor can it 'look forward' to anything.

If I remember correctly, woodlice move their legs dependent not on 'thought' or 'feeling' but simply because light speeds up the chemical reaction in their legs, making them move more quickly, therefore making them move away from light. A simple mechanism that I imagine makes them hidden from predators and move closer to a food source.

It might be fair to say that this woodlouse is not more complicated than a simple machine. In fact, we, as humans, have built far more complicated machines than this woodlouse. The mechanism I described wouldn't be out of place in a child's toy.

As always, technological advances force us to redefine our understanding of the world around us. We have created synthetic machines that are, in many respects, more advanced than basic lifeforms. Does that not mean that one day we will be able to create machines more advanced than us? What then is the makeup of the greatest mystery of human existence - what is consciousness?

I would not say the woodlouse is a conscious being and I would not say a child's toy is either. Knowing this, I would have no qualms about 'killing' either of these things arbitrarily. I would equally feel no guilt for destroying the most advanced computer in the world (other than for the cost of damages, of course). I would not feel like a life has been taken.

I would feel this guilt if, for instance, I killed a fellow mammal. A friend showed me this rather brutal video (which is possibly the most NSFW thing I've seen since 2girls1cup). It does feel bad seeing animals in distress.

This is of course due to the very noticeable and very 'human' expression of distress. However, if there were a completely new (possibly alien) species than we knew had equal 'consciousness' to a cow (or any mammal) but did not show their distress (perhaps they do not even feel any) I would still feel more guilty than I would do destroying a computer.

Why is this? Why do organisms have more value than synthetic beings, even though their ability to 'think' is very similar? In fact you could argue that everyday computers are far better at 'thinking' than we are. I'm fairly sure there are super computers that exist that have more overall processing power than the human brain (which by the way is remarkable for its size - evolution FTW). By comparison these machines are worthless in and of themselves. Their 'life', their 'thought' has no value.

After killing the aforementioned mosquito, I sat on the toilet and thought hard about what does have value and why, eventually reaching the following conclusion. The difference between the bug, the computer, the mammal and us humans, is the complexity and diversity of our sensations, thought and responses.

In a sense, the computer and the insect are the same. They have no desires, no wishes. They are both machines based on very simple architectures. The computer has vast processing power, capable of sums no human can do, but it cannot choose to do anything. It simply responds to a stimulus and acts directly upon it. The relationship between stimulus and response is hard or softwired.

Humans and animals are slightly more complicated. Whilst, to a degree, we are also hard and softwired, we appear not to be. Much of this is due to the complexity of our 'hardware'. We actually have many distinct outcomes that, due to the limitation of our brains, we cannot quantify (however, perhaps there is a species somewhere in the universe that will look upon us in the same way we look at insects?).

Anyway, the point is that our complexity comes from our ability to receive data from wide ranges of 'sources' that are often in conflict. The insect does not think in the same way we do because it never has to choose between biting someone/thing or running away. This decision is made entirely based on direct stimuli.

Humans have to receive 'inputs' (I use this term for lack of a better word) in the form of desires, personality, emotions, sensations and thoughts. Decisions are made based on these (and probably many other) things. Even a cow has to choose whether to keep finding food, or lay down because it's tired or moody. These might not be choices in the same way that humans have to choose, but they're certainly far closer than a computer ever gets.

If computers eventually develop the same level of complexity in their thinking and develop their own needs, aspirations and sensations then I believe I would feel guilty for ending a computer's 'life'.

Hey, it might all be bollocks. I'm currently very tired (writing this at 2am) and I suspect this whole post is very poorly written. I'm also very aware of how debatable each aspect of the argument is, particularly because, to my knowledge, the language needed for much of this discussion doesn't currently exist in the mainstream (and more importantly, in my vocabulary). I'll probably read this back tomorrow and think it's all ridiculous. Either way, I can say I had a eureka moment on the toilet, so the whole experience was worthwhile.


ADDENDUM:

Here's a simplified, tabulated version of what I was trying to say before. Hope it makes some sense


Update: July 29th 2010

I reread this and here is my self-commentary:

Is this an attempt to rationalise the irrational? The guilt is an emotion triggered (supposedly) by my connection to other sentient beings. Why do I even give this life value above others? Most likely because I, as many humans do, define myself mostly by my sentience. "I think, therefore I am". My concept of identity and individuality is centered around consciousness. I have placed value in these things, therefore I project these values onto other sentient beings. I connect with them. I feel for them in a way I cannot for non-sentient beings that don't value these things.

It is somewhat simplistic to say that all action is selfishly motivated - mostly because it implies negativity - but it does serve as a reminder that the only way we can ultimately judge the consequences of our actions is by the emotion it makes us feel. I myself am guilty of forgetting this. To try to quantify the value of life by its resemblance to the 'human experience' is deeply flawed. In this attempt I was fairly oblivious to the ridiculousness of the endeavour.

That's not to say, however, that the system does not have its merits. In fact I still believe much of what I wrote. Much of the understanding will most likely be robust enough to serve its purpose as my personal guideline. Nevertheless I am aware that in all likelihood, millennia from now, this view will be looked back upon as inhumane.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is that morality in this form is an attempt to process and make sense of [thought] something that we cannot easily process [emotion]. In this case, I was not trying to find 'truth' exactly , but rather to process my guilt for killing the insect. Without the emotion, I would not feel the need to compare the value of life and my only way of judging whether I have been 'correct' in my comparison is the alleviation from that guilt.

In the end, morality is still irrational and no amount of thinking can change that. Of course, it is deeply important from a personal perspective as well as a sociological one. It's just something I feel it's important to be aware of...

Prime Minister's Questions (16.06.10)

Well it seems I gave Cameron too much credit last time. I praised his ability to recognise successes from both parties. Methinks I spoke too soon.

This week he was brutal, responding to all of Harman's questions by attacking the former government. As I said in my last post, I hate this. Particularly when it's used as an evasive strategy to avoid questions on difficult subjects. The blame game is old politics, not 'new'.

There was some fierce debate on the unemployment figures (that was cleared up here). During this argument the Prime Minister was noticeably arrogant and bitter. Much more like the privileged public schoolboy act I abhor. I'm a keen believer in personality being a key factor in good leadership - Cameron hardly showed his best side.

It was sad to see Clegg nodding along. Much of what he symbolised was a different, more moderate, balanced approach to politics. During the election campaign, he mostly seemed to shy away from the political point-scoring. He was hardly squeaky-clean, but he did seem the best of the party leaders. It's strange to see him now supporting Cameron's shameless Labour-bashing. Admittedly I don't think I've ever seen a man look so uncomfortable doing it, but he is doing it.

As far as I'm concerned, Simon Hughes is the de facto leader of the Liberal Democrats and Clegg is just stuck as a pretty useless member of the cabinet. His role should be bringing Lib Dem policy to the forefront of the argument. Instead, he seems suffocated in a government he can never fully support. I can imagine him becoming increasingly frustrated with his position. Particularly as Cameron will spread his wings further and their differences will become far more apparent.

Prime Minister's Questions: Cameron's Second. My First.

This was my first time seeing Cameron on PMQs. I've never been a huge fan, because I find myself frustrated seeing the argument never go anywhere. However, this time I was glued to the screen. There was real debate here.

First off, Cameron deserves credit for his performance. He was confident and convincing. His PR skills are certainly far better than Brown's ever were. This will be very important throughout his term as leader. With harsh cuts on the way he will need to utilise this skill to keep the British public on his side.

Whilst I certainly don't instinctively agree with the policy decisions of the Tory government, they are (at least mostly) in power. It's reassuring to see a leader that listens and responds even to his opposition.

Cameron certainly argued his case well, and at times I found myself agreeing with him. I'm not sure about CCTV or Iraq/Afghanistan, but he did make a clear case about gun laws and redrawing constituency boundaries.

Many commentators claim that Harman failed to land any real blows against Cameron's electoral policy, but I feel she made an incredibly good point about electoral registration. I doubt this will change the coalition's policy, but it does stick in my mind.

Conversely I can see Cameron's point about Labour not sorting this out in their time in Government. I don't think that's a good enough argument to ignore it now, but it's still a good point.

I still can't side with his views on the failures of the previous government, but it's nice to know that it's unlikely we have another Thatcher on our hands. Whatever my beliefs are, much of the country are quite angered by the last 13 years of Labour government. The situation could be much worse.

I have to admit that I'm still on the side of the coalition. I want this to work out because I think it's in the country's long term interest for governments to be open and break the long-standing tradition of partisan, two-party politics. I can't say the same for all of Tory policy, but I recognise that Cameron is a far more open and progressive Tory leader than any before him. In many ways I prefer his personality to Gordon Brown's, who I found could be unnecessarily stubborn on important changes in policy.