Monday, February 19, 2018

Mind/Body Dissonance

This post is about mind/body dissonance, that is, cases where what one thinks or feels about one's body does not align with how one's body is.

If all a human person is is a human mind, then to respect the human being will always be to view those thoughts and feelings as authoritative for how the body should be, assuming the individual understands what they are thinking or feeling correctly. Neither cutting nor anorexia are authorized by the individuals' feelings about themselves. So even in this case there is a requirement that the actions be rationally authorized in some manner. What is that manner? It is not immediately obvious.

If one grants that human beings are partially or entirely constituted by their bodies, then one cannot make nearly so strong a claim about the mind's authority over the body. In cases of mind/body dissonance, it is clear that something has gone wrong. The puzzle is over whether the mind ought to be molded to fit the body or vice-versa. In either case, the embodied human being is changed yet preserved.

Notice here that we all agree that individuals with cases of mind/body dissonance should not exist. Disagreements occur over how to make it the case, if we should, that no such individuals exist. No one (at least that I would be inclined to take too seriously) would hold that such individuals should be eradicated qua individuals, but merely qua cases of mind/body dissonance. That is, the dissonance should be resolved in some manner.

Our desires about how to appear carry some weight. We can dress ourselves in various ways, work out, get our hair cut in different styles, etc. Conflicts in society begin to arise when the changes are more permanent or less superficial or have a more direct impact on health or bodily integrity. The conservative approach is to hesitate, to be wary of irrevocable change. The logic here is the same as the argument against the death penalty. One had better be quite sure that one knows and wants what one is getting oneself into.

The same argument, incidentally, can be marshaled in favor of acting according to the view that global worming is real, against abortion, and for safety-net policies. It is not a knock-down argument, and no one thinks it is. It is a solid consideration, however.

How can we tell when to take the risk and change our own bodies? This is what is argued about in discussions of transgender and transhuman thought. When do the benefits outweigh the costs? In the next post, I will consider one possible benefit: preserving autonomy, that is, letting people do as they please.

No comments:

Post a Comment