I'm not interested in teaching you English. — Michael
When does “person” or “human being” happen so that it matters in discussion about abortion. That’s the money time period or moment. — Fire Ologist
Did you really need someone to explain that? — praxis
person is like intelligence
[or as you put it “aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition”] . Ok, so a fetus can’t structurally have “aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition” until it has a certain brain and that brain does certain things. [so a fetus can’t be a person yet]. True [consistent], but let’s consistently apply the working theory. If a person is the happening of intelligence [or “aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition”], then is a baby a person? Am I a person when I am sleeping and not dreaming? I think the consistent answer has to be no. When I am sleeping, I don’t have an intellect [or “aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition”]. I don’t even have an “I”. Without consciousness, the brain isn’t doing that which generates the activity or process or intellect labeled as “person”. The person already is not there, not yet formed, when consciousness isn’t turned on for any reason, so that human body is not a “person” anymore. — Fire Ologist
But the flies are not at war with you. They just do what they do instinctively, with no malicious intent on their part. In this way, they are innocent victims of your unwarranted war on them.One can act on his principles and experiences. I don’t kill flies because they are flies but because I am at eternal war with them. — NOS4A2
What makes it easier to "dehumanize" a zygote vs an adult human if not a difference in the number of human qualities they have? I don't have to strip away any human qualities from a zygote. It's just a single-cell. If you want to point to the cause of the zygote being sexual intercourse between two humans then this is an arbitrary decision on your part as others would argue that killing an unwanted dolphin or chimpanzee is inhumane.The abortion itself isn’t dehumanizing. Dehumanizing someone isn’t the act of killing, but of considering someone inhuman so as to make killing them easier. It’s a psychological and linguistic process. You strip away mentally as many human qualities as possible, question his humanity, so the homicide leaves a softer mark on the conscience. It’s why you cannot say what other species of life you are killing, despite questioning that he is human. — NOS4A2
I never said it was a moral good to be celebrated. It's something that should be rare is not a situation most people want to be in to have to decide. As such, we should respect others predicament and let them choose what works best for them, because you are not them. It is dehumanizing to think that you can impose your arbitrary definitions on others when they are making a personal, private decision regarding something they did not want to happen in the first place.I’m completely against prohibition or forced births, and always was. But fairly recent advances in embryology and genetics makes it clear we’re ending an innocent human life. “Personhood” isn’t a coherent ground to stand on either, and the notion comes off as more superstitious than the transmigration of souls. So personally I cannot be dismissive of the victim and pretend abortion is some moral good to be celebrated. — NOS4A2
This is not a picture of a person, Fire.
Some people may think it's a person because that's what they've been led to believe.
There is a reason that people have been led to believe it's a person. Is that reason based on morality or something else?
what is “individual recognition” anyway? — Fire Ologist
You said person is like intelligence
[or as you put it “aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition”] . Ok, so a fetus can’t structurally have “aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition” until it has a certain brain and that brain does certain things. [so a fetus can’t be a person yet]. True [consistent], but let’s consistently apply the working theory. If a person is the happening of intelligence [or “aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition”], then is a baby a person? Am I a person when I am sleeping and not dreaming? I think the consistent answer has to be no. When I am sleeping, I don’t have an intellect [or “aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition”]. I don’t even have an “I”. Without consciousness, the brain isn’t doing that which generates the activity or process or intellect labeled as “person”. The person already is not there, not yet formed, when consciousness isn’t turned on for any reason, so that human body is not a “person” anymore.
So can you explain how the distinction between person and human being discussed above is wrong, or wrongly applied to sleeping babies for instance, or, if not, refute that it is inconsistent to point to a baby or an unconscious human body or a human zygote, and say that it’s a person? — Fire Ologist
A zygote can develop into multiple persons.If that is an human zygote, every person who has ever existed goes through this stage in their lifecycle. What leads you to believe it is not a person? — NOS4A2
the same question from way way back that I’ve asked multiple people over and over to directly address in any way — Fire Ologist
No, you don't have to be an essentialist to say "beard versus clean-shaven" or "individual human person" or not. As you've noted elsewhere, essentialism is the notion that there are necessary and sufficient properties that define what is the "essence" of a thing (or type of thing). Essence is a metaphysical concept.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. — Fire Ologist
We don’t need to go through every aspect of personhood do we? — praxis
We’re speaking about the medical procedure some people choose to terminate a viable pregnancy. You’re equating this with the natural and spontaneous death of a fetus.
The difference is this is the one thing in there with its own distinct and unique genetics, occupying its own unique and distinct position in space and time, and will remain as such until the end of its life. — NOS4A2
and a zygote merely has the potential to develop into 1 or more human beings. — Relativist
Identical twins begin with the same genetic material, they lack this uniqueness you mention. So unique genetics can't be the basis for identifying an individual human life.
Provide your complete principium individuationis. My issue is that there is no such thing because "individual human being" is a concept with vague boundaries. A zygote isn't a strict boundary because a zygote can produce multiple individuals. If we focus on the histories of a set of twins, they are clearly not individuated at the zygote level.
I recognize the image on the right [new born human baby] as a person. — praxis
If you say no the newborn is not a person, that seems consistent with saying a zygote is not a person either, as both of them are nothing like an adult human that we call a person. If you say yes, a newborn is a person, that seems inconsistent with saying an adult is a person but a zygote is not, so if you say “yes” I’d appreciate your reasoning. — Fire Ologist
I recognize the image on the right as a person. I don't recognize the image on the left as a person.
If you recognize the image on the left as a person, can you explain how you recognize it as a person?
Basically, why do you think a new born baby is a person? — Fire Ologist
What “personal” things are you recognizing about a new born baby? — Fire Ologist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.