subbie - When Does Personhood Begin?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Yes it is called anthropology, but thankfully we also have medicine, behavioral science, neurology, and other fields. Science cannot tell us how to behave, but it can tell us what is physically and psychologically harmful.

;)

[Guest]

Pretty sure subbie is just hung up on the entire concept of personhood being a thing.

It is "a thing". The opening post clearly used my "right to life" position to springboard into a more detailed discussion for "legal entitlement to life", which becomes more refined when one considers the gradual entitlement of rights as a living human ages (eg the right to vote, etc.).

This thread was started precisely because your right to life position is naïve and flawed. And it won't stand up to scrutiny. I give you credit for recognizing this, thus the endless circular reasoning of human=homo sapiens=human=homo sapiens=...

So, as a starting point - either the right to life is self-evident and unalienable or it is not - correct?

That's how mutually exclusive postulates work, yes. But we also need to acknowledge that how we answer that question is dependent on what we are referencing. This is where you keep falling into the rut of human=homo sapiens=human... and dismiss the argument that this is insufficient.

Yet this is already inherent in your own position. You postulated that homo sapiens could be found in to "varieties" which was hilarious to be honest. I literally lol'd when I read that. But let's take your premise that the animal classified as homo sapiens can be recognized as homo sapiens both when living and when dead. Rather than varieties of the animal Genus Homo, species sapiens let's refer to that as stages of biological activity perhaps. One of which is tautologically alive and may or may not have a right to be so which could be discussed later. The other...well, that ship has sailed. It doesn't make sense to argue that Homo sapiens have a right to life just relying on your own attempts at defending a position. And if you were the honest type, you'd acknowledge that we aren't limited to describing other states of biological activity or developmental status. I mean, your sperm isn't helpful to someone trying to fertilize a goat's egg. You can “F” goats all day and you'll never produce offspring. Which you probably know... Anywho...the gamotes are recognizable as belonging to their species. But you wouldn't argue that having a wet dream is involuntary manslaughter. Nor do I believe you would see every woman or couple who suffered a miscarriage investigated to ensure they were not guilty of murder through neglect or some other fault. You intuit that there is a limit to the stages prior to birth when we acknowledge the mass of cells as being a person.

But we know. It's a tough thing to cross the gap from #humanlifeissacred!!!! to an informed and consistent prolife position, even with EA coaching you along a few times.

So yeah, keep at it subbie. Humans=homo sapiens=humans. Brilliant.

[_honorentheos]

But anyways, I still don't understand why Abortion is the center of the Supreme Court debate. Why can't the center of the debate be Citizens United? Or Climate Change?

Because Kennedy was the deciding vote in CU and his replacement by Trump isn't going to change that. I guarantee if we had elected Clinton that is exactly the roar you'd be hearing from the Fox News crowd angry over Clinton getting to nominate the replacements for Scalia, Ginsberg and Kennedy. It kinda boggles the mind a little to try and imagine what the world would be like right now if there was a Republican-controlled Senate opposing a Clinton nomination a little over three month from the mid-terms.

Kids and your naïve idealism. screwed us up the ass, you did DT. "Clinton was shady! She was for Big Money! She was just as bad as Trump!"

Yeah

[_DoubtingThomas]

Kids and your naïve idealism. ____ us up the ass, you did DT. "Clinton was shady! She was for Big Money! She was just as bad as Trump!"

Yeah

No Clinton wasn't as bad a Trump, but she probably wouldn't have been able to do much with Mitch and a Republican senate. With Trump in the white house it is a big opportunity for Democrats to take the Presidency and Congress in 2020. When the Democrats are in full power all they have to do is amnesty for all undocumented immigrants.

Because Kennedy was the deciding vote in CU and his replacement by Trump isn't going to change that. I guarantee if we had elected Clinton that is exactly the roar you'd be hearing from the Fox News crowd angry over Clinton getting to nominate the replacements for Scalia, Ginsberg and Kennedy.

Mitch McConnell is a bad man. With a Republican senate Hillary would have been as powerless as Obama was in 2016. Think about it. McConnell would have argued that Democrats shouldn't have too many Supreme Court picks. But anyways, I still don't understand why abortion is the center of all the debate.

[_honorentheos]

Full disclosure, DT. Your time on the board has led me to form a new version of Poe's law. Most of the time I honestly can't tell if you are really some middle-aged male Mormon troll caricaturing what a middle-aged white male Mormon thinks liberals think. And so what you post sounds artificial to me. But that very well could be because you are young and were raised as a male Mormon who hasn't been able to build an actual foundation under what you intuit to be a better way. I probably wasn't too different when I was a 30-something and leaving the church behind. Either way, what you post sounds artificial to me.

Point being, DT's law is that I can't tell the difference between a middle-aged male Mormon troll pretending to be a young non-theist progressive and an actual post-Mormon young non-theist progressive.

[_EAllusion]

I agree because we humans are social animals and we should work together to solve complicated problems, but philosophy alone probably won't get us anywhere. We need the help of science. Read Pinker, Shermer, Harris, and other intellectuals on how science has contributed to the progress of humanity. Do you have any evidence that philosophy of ethics has significantly contributed to human progress?

I was a double major in biology and psychology with a minor in chemistry.

The idea that we need to read Sam Harris to understand that science has contributed something to humanity creates a situation where it is not possible to roll one's eyes hard enough. Yes, science has contributed to human progress. No one is disputing this. Not even a little bit. It is also true that science can give help us understand the world in such a way that our moral judgments become better informed. If you think moral goods have something to do with promoting happiness, then the science of happiness is going to tell us a lot about what is good, no?

Philosophy of ethics played a major role in why liberal democratic governments exist. That seems like a big deal. Moreover, phil of ethics is just a rigorous way of thinking about the kind of ideas you're playing around with in this thread. If you're going to do philosophy of ethics, you might as well do it well.

It is likely, but not 100% obvious.

Saying it is likely, but not obvious is also a moral assertion that requires some basis for making. I'm trying to get you to understand that what seems clear to you actually isn't an end-point assertion, but a conclusion arrived at through some chain of reasoning.

For example, imagine your the sort of person who thinks that what is morally good is what promotes happiness and what is morally bad is what thwarts it referred to above. Well, then moral goods and evils can only apply to things that have the capacity to experience happiness right? Consciousness is a prerequisite to that, therefore beings that lack the fundamental capacity for consciousness cannot have moral goods or evils happen to them. Ergo it is not wrong to kill them.

I'm not saying I agree with this reasoning - I don't - but it is a short version of the kind of argument you should be thinking about before taking for granted a position that isn't at all self-evident and disputed by people you disagree with.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I probably wasn't too different when I was a 30-something and leaving the church behind. Either way, what you post sounds artificial to me.

The Hell with how I sound. The topic isn't about me! What matters here is the evidence and good arguments. Let's just try to have an intelligent conversation. Or could it be that you have nothing useful to say?

So, I will just pretend that I didn't read the above, and please answer my questions.

It is likely, but not 100% obvious. I am wiling to change my mind. Please tell me when can a human have rights? Why?
Is it before 24 weeks? in third trimester? After birth? After two years old? Please don't ignore my questions.

[Guest]

Saying it is likely, but not obvious is also a moral assertion that requires some basis for making. I'm trying to get you to understand that what seems clear to you actually isn't an end-point assertion, but a conclusion arrived at through some chain of reasoning.

Okay.

The idea that we need to read Sam Harris to understand that science has contributed something to humanity creates a situation where it is not possible to roll one's eyes hard enough. Yes, science has contributed to human progress. No one is disputing this. Not even a little bit. It is also true that science can give help us understand the world in such a way that our moral judgments become better informed. If you think moral goods have something to do with promoting happiness, then the science of happiness is going to tell us a lot about what is good, no?

Sure, if we define morality as something that is healthy.

Philosophy of ethics played a major role in why liberal democratic governments exist. That seems like a big deal. Moreover, phil of ethics is just a rigorous way of thinking about the kind of ideas you're playing around with in this thread. If you're going to do philosophy of ethics, you might as well do it well.

How do you do it well? There is no consensus on anything in philosophy. Is there a well-established philosophical idea? and how do we know that it is true? Is it possible to know anything in philosophy? Perhaps our world is just a Brain in a Jar simulation or someone's dream.

I'm not saying I agree with this reasoning - I don't - but it is a short version of the kind of argument you should be thinking about before taking for granted a position that isn't at all self-evident and disputed by people you disagree with.

Okay fair enough. But I will appreciate it if you answer my questions

Please tell me when can a human have rights? Why?
Is it before 24 weeks? in third trimester? After birth? After two years old? Please don't ignore my questions.

[_EAllusion]

Everyone, literally everyone, has to have some criteria for distinguishing between morally relevant things and not morally relevant things. And underneath that, we need to have some criteria for distinguishing being things laws apply to and don't. "Personhood" is a common term used to refer to this. There is a secondary sense of personhood that really is an idea about personhood - one subgenius isn't aware of, but could be read as groping at - which is often also called personal identity. It refers to having the mental capacity to have a sense of self with conscious desires for how things ought to be. As it happens, I think only things with this sense of personal identity are persons in a morally relevant sense, but that doesn't matter here.

If subgenius or anyone wants to use some other word to talk about the criteria for distinction, that's fine. Let's call it flibbleflarb. It still is the case that you can't just assume that living things have flibbleflarb or that only living beings with a shared genetic identity enough to be called human have flibbleflarb. You got to supply some reason for thinking that. Subgenius won't because he can't. It's just an article of faith that, while probably a major motive in his political thinking, he hasn't actually thought all that deeply about.

[_DoubtingThomas]

For example, imagine your the sort of person who thinks that what is morally good is what promotes happiness and what is morally bad is what thwarts it referred to above. Well, then moral goods and evils can only apply to things that have the capacity to experience happiness right? Consciousness is a prerequisite to that, therefore beings that lack the fundamental capacity for consciousness cannot have moral goods or evils happen to them. Ergo it is not wrong to kill them.

I'm not saying I agree with this reasoning - I don't - but it is a short version of the kind of argument you should be thinking about before taking for granted a position that isn't at all self-evident and disputed by people you disagree with.

I see! Yes I understand what you are telling me. Thanks. At least you are much better than honorentheos.