So what about a species determines whether or not it is wrong to kill its innocent members?

Are you trying to get around to saying all single-cells organisms are of the same moral worth?

Are you trying to get around to saying all single-cells organisms are of the same moral worth? — NOS4A2

I have explicitly said several times that all single-celled organisms are of the same moral worth (specifically, worthless).

Whereas you have continually avoided explaining why the single-celled organisms of one species has a greater moral worth than the single-celled organisms of another species.

Humans are of the same moral worth as flies, ie. worthless. I mean, what can I say to that?

Humans are of the same moral worth as flies, ie. worthless. I mean, what can I say to that? — NOS4A2

Single-celled humans are of the same moral worth as single-celled flies, i.e. worthless. Don't fabricate strawmen.

ah so you are an essentialist, if humans aren’t reducible to co figuration of matter it doesn’t follow that there’s no identity criterion for humans and identity criterion for when matter is a part of a human.

If a woman you knew wanted implant one of those single-celled organisms into her womb so as to incubate it, which one would you choose?

ah so you are an essentialist, — Johnnie

No, I'm explicitly not an essentialist.

If a woman you knew wanted implant one of those single-celled organisms into her womb so as to incubate it, which one would you choose? — NOS4A2

I wouldn't choose, it's got nothing to do with me.

I wouldn't choose, it's got nothing to do with me.

You’d allow her to attempt to carry a fly to term?

You’d allow her to attempt to carry a fly to term? — NOS4A2

Allow her? I don't know why you're suggesting that I'm allowed to tell women what to do.

Allow her? I don't know why you're suggesting that I'm allowed to tell women what to do.

Ok, in the future men can get pregnant. You have the choice between two single-celled organisms, a human and a fly? Which one do you choose to carry to term, nurse, and care for into early adulthood?

you’re an essentialist wrt to fundamental particles. And if you believe that on the basia of standard model you also have to accept there are multiparticle systems whose states cannot be a product of particle-states, read the SEP link I provided

beard vs being clean-shaven. What's the point at which whisker growth constitutes a beard? — Relativist

Spot on, great discussion.

What process did you use to identify "beard"? Or "clean shaven"? In order to look for the gray, fuzzy relationship that may or may not exist between the two, you demarked a clear, black and white difference between a bearded and a clean-shaven face. What did you do there? That process is what I am trying to apply to the concept of "me" meaning a bi-pedal hominid stinking up the earth.

You invoked "beard" and "not-beard" and pointed in two different directions with these invocations. What allows you to do that and convey any significance to some third party like me who has to look for differences and make my own demarcations all by myself? You can't say "clean shaven" is more like "not-beard" and "beard" is more like "not clean shaven" without saying "beard" and "clean shaven" are different, otherwise you would not be able to point to a gray fuzzy relationship between "beard" and "clean-shaven", AND, I couldn't see what you are saying if there was in fact, no difference between a beard and clean-shaven, OR, I couldn't see what you are saying if you were not constructing a black and white difference between beard and clean-shaven in your language.

You acknowledge the concept is fuzzy, and yet you think it should be possible to identify a point at which a human life begins. — Relativist

I'm not saying fertilization doesn't occur in time. There is a fuzzy border at every turn for us. If it sounds like I am somehow relying on the notion that persons pop into existence in an instant, I'm not. I have been calling it "the moment of conception" so I can see why you might think the temporal duration is important to my argument. But that time can be longer and include some additional steps besides fertilization. I am positing my own counter-arguments that allow for the development of the person from not-person over time, but in order to do that, I have to say what a person is at any point.

At some point in time we no longer see the gray, and black or white emerges, or we never get beyond the gray. We either see clearly that an animal such as a human being, is different than a hurricane, or we don't and the black and white swirls back to gray. But the way I see it, in order to have black, we also need not-black; in order to have gray we need black; in order to have white we need gray; in order to have black and white and we need gray; in order to have gray we need black and white; in order to have white we need black.... Or is there only gray? In which case a beard and a clean-shaven face are both a zygote, which is a person, or an ice-cream truck?

You have a sperm with 23 chromosomes and an egg with 23 chromosomes before fertilization. After fertilization you no longer have a sperm and an egg (like no more clean face), and instead have a 46 chromosome new thing (like a beard). While the first two chromosomes of the sperm attach to the first two chromosomes of the egg, and the third chromosome of each is beginning to attach, can we call it a sperm or an egg anymore? Do we have a half-human/half non-human thing?

And with that, I've just deconstructed of the notion of "moment" of conception for you. There is a duration of time during which any change occurs and we are talking about the change in our history from things that are not people (like zygotes in many arguments) to things that are people (like Mrs. Smith). But because duration is a reality and "moment" is a fabrication, have I deconstructed my whole argument? I don't think so. There is still a difference between a growing zygote (black) and an adult person (white) that I need to explain (unfortunately, always using gray terms).

I'm open to an argument that the gray fuzzy period of time could be from conception to brain-stem formation, or from conception to consciousness formation, or self-awareness formation, or language formation, or concept formation, or adult conversation formation. Maybe it takes 20 years for a "person" to come to be in time. Lay those arguments on me.

But I can't abandon the notion of a "person" entirely and make any of these arguments. And neither can you, and neither are you abandoning the concept of "person".

Banno and Michael, and now you with the beard and the clean-shaven face, keep pointing to differences. Nobody is arguing that there is no difference between an adult organism and a fetal organism. (There are many differences between two adults.) So we all seem to agree that there is "difference" in our experience. I certainly agree with all of you that there are differences.

I think we would disagree that saying "there are differences" is a metaphysical statement, and that metaphysics is science, and that science is a pursuit of objectivity we share. But I agree with you that there are differences in the world in itself.

An essentialist, to me, takes those differences and tries to apply them to substances hiding on either side of the demarcation line now called the difference. They see some fuzzy line between a beard and clean-shaven and say things like: "the essence of clean-shaven is no whiskers visible, allowing for direct slapping of the skin when the face is being slapped" for instance. They think they don't need to compare "clean-shaven" to anything else or refer to the beard at all, and think the essence of clean-shaven can be found with the in-itself of the clean-shaven face. The essence of clean-shaven-ness. A non-essentialist, to me, takes the differences and sees them only by the comparison. There is no way to look at just the clean-shaven face, and understand what a clean-shaven face is; you have to hold it up to its context to even begin to see why we might say "clean" or "shaven", and see the beard along with the clean in order to proceed to identify a difference between the two. The default is everything is the same one, and the break from that lies in between multiple same ones, not some fairy essence in the multiplicity.

But the different approaches to meaningful speech (essentialist or non-essentialist) about face maintenance are, to me, semantic. Both types of discussion are recognizing the same fact of difference between one thing and another thing, they only place the significance of that difference in a different location - an essentialist sees it in the two things, a non-essentialist sees it somewhere between the two now amorphous "things". Same meaning to the same topic of the same discussion, just two different semantical devices to get there.

I happen to think the non-essentialist process is the better process. It is why we rarely find a clear line between anything. It is why Heraclitus was the wisest of them all. It is why Aristotle is easy to dismiss (although he was the second-wisest). It is why Kant's phenomenal veil will always be pulled over our eyes. It is why Hegel may be the third wisest. It is why eastern thinkers who take essence and show how it must implode as it crystalizes are also wise...

But there is no speaking, no significance to any word, if we don't acknowledge gray, fuzzy lines of difference. It is easier to talk in essentialist terms, so essentialism is more like a tool of language.

You have to sound like an essentialist to say "beard versus clean-shaven" at all. To avoid essentialist speak is to conduct tiresome linguistic acrobatics to bring us to the same place anyway - the difference between this and that.

What I don't think, is that, because the line between beard and clean-shaven is fuzzy, there is no such thing as "beard" or "clean-shaven" either. At least for a time, for some duration, differences hold between face and not-face, or clean and not-clean. I don't abandon the mind-independent, physical, objective, world just because I have such epistemological and metaphysical difficulties, as well as perceptual difficulties of sensation, with grasping or even just experiencing it. I still see difference, (like you all keep seeming to see as well), and I see more to that difference on either side of the difference. The line between beard and clean-shaven, as well as the beard, and the clean-shaveness, these are all fuzzy. But in order for me to maintain the concept that a "a beard is, and it is different than clean-shaven" I have to admit I am recognizing something clearly, in black, not-white, as well.

And if I want to talk about this at all, I have to sound like an essentialist. Like you did when you simply pointed to "beard." Here is an example of sounding like an essentialist:

Essentialism is false. — Michael

There must be an essence to essentialism in order to put a box around it and file it under the "false" category of judgment, or in order to just say "essentialism is". OR, non-essentially speaking, there must be a comparable difference between essentialism and something else (anything else, everything else) in order to point away from whatever essentialism is to some thing else. Otherwise, there is no significance to saying "essentialism" at all, and nothing has been said.

We need the differences in order to make any moves, both when crossing the room, or laying out a sentence.

Don't call the significance of these differences anything "essential" if you want. Instead, take the effort to have a conversation otherwise, but you haven't refuted the fact that there are persons in the world, independent of us all, who are distinct from grapefruit and soda, and that only by recognizing black and white clear differences can you say this, or make sentences that attempt to refute it.

There is a lot more to say before the above could really be recognized as an important part of the abortion playing board, but the prosecution will adjourn for lunch.

Which one do you choose to carry to term, nurse, and care for into early adulthood? — NOS4A2

None, I don't want children.

What is the purpose of these bizarre questions? They do not appear to have anything to do with whether or not membership of a particular species grants a single-celled organism greater moral worth than membership of other species.

There must be an essence to essentialism in order to put a box around it and file it under the "false" category of judgment, or in order to just say "essentialism is". OR, non-essentially speaking, there must be a comparable difference between essentialism and something else (anything else, everything else) in order to point away from whatever essentialism is to some thing else. Otherwise, there is no significance to saying "essentialism" at all, and nothing has been said.

We need the differences in order to make any moves, both when crossing the room, or laying out a sentence.

Don't call the significance of these differences anything "essential" if you want. Instead, take the effort to have a conversation otherwise, but you haven't refuted the fact that there are persons in the world, independent of us all, who are distinct from grapefruit and soda, and that only by recognizing black and white clear differences can you say this, or make sentences that attempt to refute it.

There is a lot more to say before the above could really be recognized as an important part of the abortion playing board, but the prosecution will adjourn for lunch. — Fire Ologist

See language games and family resemblances, e.g. Wittgensetin's question "what is a game?"

In the opening of the article: “…the Augustinian picture of language which might be correct but which is, nevertheless, strictly limited because it ignores the essential role of action in establishing…”

Painful. Wish those making non-essentialist points would stop making essential distinctions.

I studied Wittgenstein. But I’ll keep reading if it is for the purpose of continuing the discussion. After all I said above, are you just fed up or unwilling to teach me yourself, handing me over to Wittgenstein?

You don't seem to understand what essentialism is if that it your response to that particular use of the term "essential".

You don't seem to understand what essentialism is if that it your response to that particular use of the term "essential". — Michael

True, you wouldn’t be able to put a box around what I understand from that one sentence - it could mean anything.

But the last line of the article comparing early and later Witt:

“In other words, the grand question of interpreting
Wittgenstein, i.e., the question of continuities or
breaks, remains at the forefront of understanding
Wittgenstein.”

The question of continuities or breaks.

Remains.

Maybe Wittgenstein didn’t really know what Wittgenstein meant either. And if that was his point, we all need more therapy, because the questions remain for many of us who have read Wittgenstein.

Resemblance requires something like the black, the white and the grey to be used meaningfully, or to have use if that makes you feel better about my adherence to proper grammar found in this game.

I don’t know why you think I’m not in the same game with you here. As if if a mere assertion “you don’t know what essentialism means” deserves nothing more. As if none of what I said is not specifically what Wittgenstein was trying to address.

you’re an essentialist wrt to fundamental particles. — Johnnie

I keep telling these guys there are fairy essences hiding in the assertions they are making. I think it is because they are not being careful with their language mostly. But ultimately, I think it’s because they are dealing with mind-independent facts, like fundamental particles, for instance, like the rest of us are.

Where do the souls of aborted babies go? What would a soul of an embryo frozen for centuries experience? — RogueAI

In this attempted conversation regarding whether we can or even need to identify a functional use for the word “human being” that is relevant to the question of why someone would be pro-life, I don’t think the introduction of the term “soul” is going to be anything but a catastrophe.

My answer in the context of this discussion is - I don’t have any idea if “souls” ever “go” at all, let alone where or how they would go when bodies die, as in when a fetus is destroyed in an abortion.

In this context, I would just think of a soul as a euphemism for “person” as in “how many souls went into the water when the Titanic sunk.” We are still trying to come to terms with “person” or “human being.”

Fair enough?

I don’t have any idea if “souls” ever “go” at all, let alone where or how they would go when bodies die, as in when a fetus is destroyed in an abortion. — Fire Ologist

Catholics have an idea and you claim to be a Catholic.

Catholics have an idea and you claim to be a Catholic. — praxis

That’s dumb. No they don’t.

We trust God on the issues we can’t use our own reason and senses to sort out.

Where do souls go? They remain in God’s hands as they are all along.

Do you think you know me, or Catholics now? Have I said anything that has meaning to you? Doesn’t seem like it.

Again, what is your point in speaking to me?

Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic view is that baptism is necessary for salvation and that it frees the recipient from original sin. Roman Catholic tradition teaches that unbaptized infants, not being freed from original sin, go to Limbo (Latin: limbus infantium), which is an afterlife condition distinct from Hell.

Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic view is that baptism is necessary for salvation and that it frees the recipient from original sin. Roman Catholic tradition teaches that unbaptized infants, not being freed from original sin, go to Limbo (Latin: limbus infantium), which is an afterlife condition distinct from Hell. — praxis

But I am speaking with you now. So, this is utterly meaningless drivel and I wouldn't even know where to start to take another step in such a conversation.

I wouldn't even know where to start to take another step in such a conversation. — Fire Ologist

How about starting with whether or not you reject essentialism?

How about starting with whether or not you reject essentialism? — praxis

I’m not doing anymore work for you.

Define essentialism. Tell me how it is relevant in your mind to a conversation regarding abortion.

Essentially, a Catholic cannot reject essentialism because of the belief in an immoral soul. Catholics believe that the soul enters the body at conception.

Essentially, — praxis

:rofl: So you are an essentialist too! Like the Catholics.

You believe that using words is essentialist?

I don’t think that religious beliefs are immutable. If fact, earlier I mentioned how the Catholic position on the fate of unbaptized souls has recently changed.

You believe that using words is essentialism? — praxis

No. But can you say otherwise? I presume you can’t because you won’t say what essentialism essentially is.

And there is no logical connection between essentialism and belief in a soul - what are you talking about? That can’t be why a Catholic cannot reject essentialism. Why can’t souls be as amorphous as whatever else we are talking about?

Maybe Catholics really are essentialists, but you need to do more to support this.

You keep getting nowhere with me, or towards advancing any interesting point.