One of the advantages of the capacities approach is that it does not rely on subjective muck such as desires.

A foetus has very few unfulfilled capabilities. Capabilities provide an evaluable metric, not provided by speculations abut desires.

The capabilities approach has the rather obvious disadvantage of ruling out things considered of value on a superficial basis. "Your acorn is not an oak tree! It doesn't even have roots, a trunk, branches, or leaves! So go ahead and throw it in the bin! You need think no further than that!".

Skip ahead years later. I now have deep regrets for not planting that acorn when I had the opportunity to do so, and for not giving it due consideration. I could've had an oak tree by now, but I threw that acorn in the bin, because it was just an acorn.

Come to think of it, this reminds me of the story of the ugly duckling. Banno, do you hunt ugly ducklings? After all, they're not swans. They don't have those beautiful white feathers. Fire away!

so my 21 year old daughter is suffering from depression. She tells me she wants to take her life. Should I let her. Or assume that her ideal desire if it was not handicapped by her illness would be to live and get her help

A liver is not a human being. Neither, as far as I’m aware, is it made of a single cell. A human being is one of us, from the point at which we begin to develop, which is the moment of conception, right? — AJJ

But you're dancing around the question. What is a human being? Why is a sperm attached to an egg a person and a fingernail not?

Yeah, you tell him, Hanover! Stop dancing around the irrelevant question, AJJ!

The qualities listed by Nussbaum are sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.

A newborn is a person. — Banno

Yes, but what about the drunk homeless man, asleep in the gutter? Shall we kill this insentient, unemotional, inaffectionate, physically unhealthy, and irrational hunk of flesh before he awakes and sobers up?

Yeah, you tell him, Hanover! Stop dancing around the irrelevant question, AJJ! — S

I'll pay attention to you in a moment. I see you've got your hand raised.

As to AJJ, his position is explicitly that certain things are clearly classified as human and others not, so he does have answer the question, even if you believe you have a better solution that avoids his problem.

I think that it's safe to say that we've had more than enough counterexamples to reject this capabilities approach that Banno has put forward. Are we all agreed on that, with the exception of Banno?

No. If the capabilities approach said otherwise, i would reject it.

Note the term approach. The list is not a definition of personhood. It's rather a way of thinking about what we ought to do. A the least we ought not stand in the way of a person with a disability seeking emotional fulfilment; nor prevent a child from developing an understanding of their world; nor a drunk from developing whatever capabilities they have.

Nor a foetus from growing; if it were not for the overwhelming capabilities of the woman.

If I value oak trees, then I should value acorns, despite the fact that acorns are not oak trees. — S

Sure, I'll value them both, but lets say there's a need for a law that prohibits cutting down oak trees. Do you get fined for stepping on an acorn? What's the difference between the two?

Irresponsible people who risk making bad decisions with serious consequences warrant exceptional treatment.

Note the term approach. The list is not a definition of personhood. It's rather a way of thinking about what we ought to do. — Banno

I'm not sure how you define "approach" here other than a definition that works only sometimes.

Nor a foetus from growing; if it were not for the overwhelming capabilities of the woman. — Banno

I don't understand how this follows. You started out trying to generally define personhood and then threw down a balancing test to use when deciding fetal rights versus women's rights.

You started out trying to generally define personhood and then threw down a balancing test to use when deciding fetal rights versus women's rights. — Hanover

I don't do definitions. Again, what I wish to do with the capabilities approach is to show how shallow the future of value approach is.

Reject the CA, if you see something better. But take on board the the FOV is worse.

The law about cutting down oak trees wouldn't apply to stepping on acorns, as they're two different acts about two different things. And regardless of whether or not there's a fine for stepping on acorns, if cutting down oak trees is illegal, then there must be a reason for that. And if the reason was because they're too valuable to be cut down, then that should influence the way that we think about whether to plant or dispose of acorns.

Is that what you're calling a position such as mine: "future of value"? If so, how is my position worse? How is it more shallow?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/249170

Did you present an alternative?

Are you grouping me in with him or not? Yes, no, or not sure?

What?

Do you group yourself with him? I'd not noticed you presenting an independent opinion.

What is your opinion?

That would mean I would have to go back and read through that fairly lengthy post. Can't you just tell me how you think what I've said - as opposed to what he has said in that post - compares to the capabilities approach?

You're kidding. No.

I destroyed the first one. Tree or acorn?

Because...? You weren't paying enough attention to what I've been saying to you? You were, but you aren't sure how my position and your position compare? You just feel like being difficult? :chin:

Wrong question it seems. How valuable is it?

You just feel like being difficult? — S

Are you a millennial? :rofl:

I'll try a slightly different approach before giving up on you. If you think that my position is worse and more shallow than yours, then can you explain why you think so without erroneously attributing something I haven't said or expressed agreement with to me?

I know I posted the same quote a few pages back, making the point it was completely unsupported. Also making the point that if she was using it as a legal term, which I think she was, fine. In most of the developed world that is the legal reality, but as a moral argument it needs support

↪Andrew4Handel so my 21 year old daughter is suffering from depression. She tells me she wants to take her life. Should I let her. Or assume that her ideal desire if it was not handicapped by her illness would be to live and get her help — Rank Amateur

I think when it comes to the unborn child it has no similarities with someone who has already experienced life and formed preferences. Your daughter may have shown that she has a the ability to enjoy life and has interests that might be restored to her.

I suffer from long term depression and anxiety. Everyday you weigh up the goods and bad's of a the situation. It is not a simple dichotomous decision where you know the right course of action or outcome.

I think the problem is that once you are born and have lived some years it is not easy to commit suicide because you have an array of conflicting desires and some instincts for self preservation. This can make the situation worse. So people are like in limbo or purgatory. That is why it can be better to abort a fetus before it is trapped in this quagmire.

There is far more capacity for suffering after you are born than as a fetus.

I would not help someone kill them self but I don't think I can know whether it is the wrong decision for them to make. You might prolong someone's suffer inadvertently by helping them

Assuming they do tolerate child neglect and do nothing to alleviate it, or, better yet, assume they actually advocate child abuse and also are opposed to abortion, that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is justified. The best you've shown is that there are some fucked up hypocrites in the world. — Hanover

I think a lot of objection to abortion is simply virtue signalling. If someone claims to be concerned about children and their outcomes and potential then what have they done for any of the children in need that exist to day.

I think children suffering and starving is a defense for abortion because abortion would prevent unnecessary suffering and neglect and over population etc. And Because arguments against abortion are based on the alleged value of the life being aborted.

I think it would be better for a child not to have existed than to have starved to death or committed suicide after school bullying etc. The abortion debate is silly if we clearly do not have just outcomes for children.

I am so sorry, that was a hypothetical and I now wish I used another.

Take care of yourself please. I wish I had some great platitude I could share that would help that view, but I don't know if something like that exists. So, just take good care of yourself please

No problem