subbie - When Does Personhood Begin?

[_subgenius]

By all means, please quote the posts I wrote in this thread defending a criteria for personhood.

Aw, you're quite the sophomaniac also, aren't ya?

"Regarding the personhood debate..."
viewtopic.php?p=1129078#p1129078

"I don't find arguments that try to locate personhood in being a biologically distinct, living human to be persuasive. "
viewtopic.php?p=1129181#p1129181

""Human" in the notion of human rights refers to personhood, not human in its bare biological sense."
viewtopic.php?p=1129181#p1129181

"personhood can be afforded to non-humans, already is to a partial extent..."
viewtopic.php?p=1129200#p1129200

there ya go!
These were just some of the more glaring examples of the "defending criteria" (granted you mostly rely on proclamation instead of reason, but for you they're one in the same)...and then there are some other posts where you seem to use "person" in the same context as personhood, but who knows? you're like a dog chasing its tail here...fun to watch but we know what happens when the dog catches it.

[_DoubtingThomas]

You just expressed a position. If you think it's Ok to kill fetuses under 24 weeks old because they aren't likely to be conscious, you clearly are arguing that consciousness is important to personhood.

Yes, but I don't have a position on abortion after 24 gestational weeks because we don't know when consciousness begins. We must be very careful as Sam Harris points out here https://youtu.be/ZJCN2W7DkAY?t=3m5s .

you clearly are arguing that consciousness is important to personhood

Yes, but it is just my assumption. I think most people would agree that it is wrong to kill conscious humans. Clearly a conscious human isn't just a body organ.

So what is important to personhood? Why is infanticide wrong? What is the difference between late term abortion and infanticide? Please answer my questions so I can better understand where you are coming from. But please don't bring up the Supreme Court because we know the most powerful court in the world is worth jack****.

[Guest]

You seem to have tried to answer the question of when is consciousness and saying we don't know. What is meant by consciousness, DT?

Again science doesn't know what consciousness is. Consciousness is what makes us humans different from other things like computer viruses. Computer viruses may be alive, but are probably not conscious.

Spafford, Eugene H. "Computer viruses as artificial life." Artificial life 1.3 (1994): 249-265.
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/ab ... lCode=artl

But we don't know. Consciousness may simply be brain activity.

[_honorentheos]

If you don't know what it is, how can you ask if there is agreement about who has it let alone if it is wrong to let someone or something die who may or may not have it?

[_DoubtingThomas]

If you don't know what it is, how can you ask if there is agreement about who has it let alone if it is wrong to let someone or something die who may or may not have it?

And we don't know what Gravity is in a fundamental sense, but it doesn't mean it is wise to jump off buildings.
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/St ... ion30.html

So science doesn't know what exactly is consciousness, but with brain scans doctors can tell the difference between conscious and unconscious brain processes https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ain-scans/.

Now as I told EAllusion: what is important to personhood? Why is infanticide wrong? What is the difference between late term abortion and infanticide? Please answer my questions so I can better understand where you are coming from.

[_EAllusion]

By all means, please quote the posts I wrote in this thread defending a criteria for personhood.

Aw, you're quite the sophomaniac also, aren't ya?

"Regarding the personhood debate..."
viewtopic.php?p=1129078#p1129078

"I don't find arguments that try to locate personhood in being a biologically distinct, living human to be persuasive. "
viewtopic.php?p=1129181#p1129181

""Human" in the notion of human rights refers to personhood, not human in its bare biological sense."
viewtopic.php?p=1129181#p1129181

"personhood can be afforded to non-humans, already is to a partial extent..."
viewtopic.php?p=1129200#p1129200

there ya go!
These were just some of the more glaring examples of the "defending criteria" (granted you mostly rely on proclamation instead of reason, but for you they're one in the same)...and then there are some other posts where you seem to use "person" in the same context as personhood, but who knows? you're like a dog chasing its tail here...fun to watch but we know what happens when the dog catches it.

Not a single one of those involves me defending a criteria for personhood. The first is me stating I find a position unpersuasive while setting up the need to defend it. The second is about interpreting what the word "men" means in a clause with me arguing it most closely matches what we mean by persons without taking any stance on what qualities matter for personhood.The third is merely articulating that it is possible for people to think non-humans are persons and noting there are some partial examples of this in law.

Reading is hard, I suppose.

[_honorentheos]

If you don't know what it is, how can you ask if there is agreement about who has it let alone if it is wrong to let someone or something die who may or may not have it?

And we don't know what Gravity is in a fundamental sense, but it doesn't mean it is wise to jump off buildings.
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/St ... ion30.html

So science doesn't know what exactly is consciousness, but with brain scans doctors can tell the difference between conscious and unconscious brain processes https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ain-scans/.

Now as I told EAllusion: what is important to personhood? Why is infanticide wrong? What is the difference between late term abortion and infanticide? Please answer my questions so I can better understand where you are coming from.

I understand you prefer the answers to such question be derived from what scientific investigation has to say about what Is, and that ethics or moral philosophy's many approaches with varied results telling us conflicting things about what Ought to Be is unsatisfying. So, with that in mind, I decided I'll take the approach of answering you as best as I can relying on what the scientific method tells us Is. The results aren't my personal view of what Ought to Be, but we work with what we are given I guess.

First, based on observations of nature plant life is able to sustain itself by converting solar radiation into a form of energy that can be used to support cell activity. Animal life, however, must rely on the taking of life to sustain life. This includes the taking of plant as well as other animal life. Animals taking life Is part of the natural order of things, then.

We also observe in nature that killing includes risk as other animals have instincts they've evolved to protect their own lives such that they defend themselves in ways that strongly discourage attempts to take their lives. This includes fighting and potentially killing their attackers in defense. We observe that part of the natural order of things is predators minimizing risks to themselves as they hunt which includes seeking out the weak, old and very young. Animals killing other animals who are weak, old or very young Is part of the natural order of things.

Observations of nature have given rise to the theory of evolution which is strongly supported by evidence. It tells us that the success of life on our planet has been the result of intense competition where the genetic traits passed down through generations intersect with external environmental conditions such that those best suited to their environments will also be more successful in passing on their genes to future generations. All life currently present on the planet is the result of these evolutionary processes. Because of this, we understand we Homo sapiens have also evolved as animals. And as noted above, this tells us that for Homo sapiens, taking life Is part of the natural order of things.

We also have evolved strong biological drives that are the result of these pressures which compel us to seek the success of our own genes followed by those of our immediate family members whose genes are most closely matched to our own. On the other hand, we have impulses that cause us to fear or even hate those least like us, and these impulses are the result of our past ancestors successfully navigating their environments to be able to pass on the genes we have inherited. This stragegy of protecting our own genes while seeking an advantage over other Homo sapiens so our genes are the ones that proliferate just Is part of the natural order of things as well.

Based on this, it seems your premise that infanticide is wrong is flawed. It seems the premise more closely aligned with what science has to tell us about what Is would be the killing of infants for consumption who are not closely related to a person Is logically a reasonable way to acquire the needed energy and other material required to sustain one's own cell activity. Thus, it seems science is telling us that killing and eating babies is not something we should call "wrong" but would be recognizable within the natural order of things.

Can't say I agree with that conclusion but again, it's just an observation of what Is and then infering some form of purely science-based code of conduct from it. Otherwise one would end up trying to determine what Ought to Be, and that isn't what science does.

[_subgenius]

By all means, please quote the posts I wrote in this thread defending a criteria for personhood.

"Regarding the personhood debate..."
viewtopic.php?p=1129078#p1129078

"I don't find arguments that try to locate personhood in being a biologically distinct, living human to be persuasive. "
viewtopic.php?p=1129181#p1129181

""Human" in the notion of human rights refers to personhood, not human in its bare biological sense."
viewtopic.php?p=1129181#p1129181

"personhood can be afforded to non-humans, already is to a partial extent..."
viewtopic.php?p=1129200#p1129200

there ya go!
These were just some of the more glaring examples of the "defending criteria" (granted you mostly rely on proclamation instead of reason, but for you they're one in the same)...and then there are some other posts where you seem to use "person" in the same context as personhood, but who knows? you're like a dog chasing its tail here...fun to watch but we know what happens when the dog catches it.

Not a single one of those involves me defending a criteria for personhood. The first is me stating I find a position unpersuasive while setting up the need to defend it. The second is about interpreting what the word "men" means in a clause with me arguing it most closely matches what we mean by persons without taking any stance on what qualities matter for personhood.The third is merely articulating that it is possible for people to think non-humans are persons and noting there are some partial examples of this in law.

Reading is hard, I suppose.

Yes, not criteria when you wrote : "personhood can be afforded to non-humans" or "Human" in the notion of human rights refers to personhood" and so on...you must be amazed how anyone could read those as a standard of judgment or criticism; a rule or principle for evaluating or testing something.

like i said - sophomania has manifest upon you....reading your posts is quickly becoming like reading Sam the Eagle.

[_EAllusion]

Saying it is a logically possible or potentially viable view that personhood can be afforded to non-humans, a position overwhelmingly held by philosophers of ethics, is not the same thing as defending any particular criteria of personhood. Like, if I were to say, "personhood could just apply to humans" that wouldn't be me saying that personhood only applies to humans. It's merely articulating the idea-space.

Just remember, you've never too old to learn to read. It's not something to be ashamed about if you need help.

[_honorentheos]

Pretty sure subbie is just hung up on the entire concept of personhood being a thing. He seems to believe that is a radical assertion in itself that requires strenuous defense because...well, I guess just because. He's made the entire (human+alive = self-evident and sufficient) argument his bedrock position and probably can't be persuaded into understanding what otherwise is clear with applying the bare minimum of thought to the problem that this concept of personhood isn't radical at all. But for reasons that do hint at his understanding the problems with his position, he won't be persuaded to merely acknowledge one needs to define what distinguishes human life from all other life, what distinguishes sentience from non-sentience, and what grounds are necessary for rights to be afforded associated with these and other criteria.

Basically, he's just plugging his ears and asserting, "There's no such thing as personhood!"