So if you're a 2nd Century BCE Carthaginian, it's moral to sacrifice babies to Baal. — frank

I suppose that pro-life advocates must view Josseli Barnica and Navaeh Crain as necessarily sacrifices based on religious beliefs. The more things change the more they stay the same.

I'm not interested in teaching you English. — Michael

Am I being unreasonable or something? Is this forum only a verbal boxing ring? Everyone more interested in connecting with punches.

Can’t we make something more of it?

These could be good conversations. Maybe 200 years from now some grad student writing a thesis on when essentialism finally died will cite “Michael, from TPF, circa 2025 - On the ‘Human’” because you made such a good argument.

Is an English lesson really all you think I need, or are you just shrugging me off? Or what did I do wrong again?? Or what is wrong with you?

I am actually interested in how you and others think.

And before sending me away from the forum to get the English class I needed, you didn’t even attempt to make an argument. It’s your forum.

You may be right that I can’t say the things I say about a person and/or a human being. You may be right, along with Witttgenstein, that seeking “essence” is a wrong turn, a linguistically caused misunderstanding, and think that any pregnant woman who would ask you when you think her fetus might have to be considered a human being would be better off rethinking her question instead of trying to answer it.

You might be right.

But I don’t think it’s that simple, at all. And just asserting things isn’t doing philosophy, and isn’t having a dialogue. This is a forum to dialogue, correct?

I admit, I am emotional and come off as belittling sometimes. So maybe it’s my own fault that I get treated like this (ie - “I’m not teaching you English”), but I think I’m mostly being reasonable, and my rough edge is usually in response to people treating me like a fool. (ie, showing me pictures of a an adult human being and a clump of cells and telling me if I can’t see that the whole abortion debate is thereby resolved, I need my eyes fixed.). Give me the slightest break.

This is the perfect scenario for you to educate, in arguments, about what you know, or what I need to unlearn, or to show me how I never knew what I thought I knew. Or just try to exchange ideas. Why smack that down with insulting shrug offs?

Cash your arguments out. I’m listening for it. I think this is fun and interesting and important.

——————-

So back on topic, “human” and “swimmer” mean different things.

Got it on its face. I speak English natively too. I am swimmer and I’m not a soldier. “Human” can be used many different ways.

But when you say “mean” do you simply mean they are words used in different contexts for different purposes? Or do you mean, they point to or name different objects, or types of objects? What do you mean by “mean” when you say these words mean different things?

(Also, to be clear, “swimmer”, “person” and “soldier” are fairly strictly nouns, whereas “human” can also be used as an adjective, so I assume you meant to say “a human being and swimmer” mean two different things, or “a human and person” mean two different things. I don’t want to misunderstand you because of a typo or small lack of clarity.)

Are you just saying human is an adjective and person is a noun? (Sounds like English class!)

But back to “mean”.
Can I say: “we use the word ‘swimmer’ to point to or refer to or mean a being in the physical world, like a fish or a dolphin, or Michael Phelps”? Swimming is a physical activity, and a swimmer is a doer in the physical world. Would you say something similar to these things? “Mean” here means “point to in the physical world.”

The reason I ask is, if you would use “swimmer” only in reference to physical states of affairs, does “human being” point to something in the physical world too? Or no?

How about person - is that physical (likely not). I don’t think “person” is a “thing” to you, like a “dolphin” or “Michael Phelps swimming” might be a thing in the physical world to you. But if we name a “human being” and point to some being, is that a being in a physical sense?

Or is it only some kind of category only, like “homo sapien”? In which case a human means something different than a swimmer, as one is a universal type categorization device and the other is a thing in a pool?

I’m trying to get at what is the best word to use to have this conversation to point to the adult thing that gets pregnant in her physical sense. She may be more (and I may not know all of the things about her be they physical or whatever), but we need a word we can both agree on that refers to all pregnant women in their full valuable state. We need a word for all that matters about adult human person thing. Or else what are we talking about and how are we talking about it. What word do you want use here?

I have been using “human being” and “person” interchangably because, the point I’m trying to make, is that the whole abortion debate is about bodies acting on bodies. A distinction between “human being” and “person” only matters if you can physically kill or not kill one of them because it’s a body, and not possibly physically kill the other because it is not a body. (Kill because of the abortion context). I’m not interested in something that can’t be killed because it is not a body. If we can’t use a knife to isolate and kill the mind, or cut the intellect or the “person” or the “category human”, then all those things are not relevant to the physical act of abortion or any physical act. Abortion, under my argument, kills a human body (whole organism, not like just a kidney which isn’t an organism), and killing a human body is killing a person’s body, or killing a human being.

The body part of the equation subsumes person/human being distinctions for me, and makes them functionally equivalent terms. What do you want me to call the organism?

What is the fetus is a biological question first. Abortions are physical acts first. What is the adult is biological question. There are no adult mountains (see, I speak some English). Only living biological entities, without metaphor, can be called “adult” or “fetal” at the time of abortion. So I don’t think it is relevant to discuss “persons” if they are souls, or intellects, or minds, or bundles of attributes, or functions of a brain, or happenings in adult brains, unless you can show that this “person” thing comes later than the “human being” thing, and some human being things are not persons, or not yet persons. If you want to make a distinction between being a person and being a human being, IN THE FETUS OR THE ADULT (not an alien or other hominid because those are not at issue) that’s fine, but then you need to show where in the physical world, the world of abortions, this person fits in.

When does “person” or “human being” happen so that it matters in discussion about abortion. That’s the money time period or moment.

Maybe you have said this. You said person is like intelligence. Ok, so a fetus can’t structurally have an intellect until it has a certain brain and that brain does certain things. True, but let’s consistently apply the working theory. If a person is the happening of intelligence, 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. 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 and say that it’s a person?

I am trying to have an honest conversation for my part. I am interested in challenging my thoughts and my reasoning. That should be obvious to you as I keep throwing out all of this content hoping for the reasoned, philosophical counter point. I see someone who thinks differently than me, like you and others, and I want to see how they might be reasonable too, which challenges me to question why I think what I think.

English class. Really? All we all need is a good dictionary and the abortion discussion is over?

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

The term "person" highlights aspects of existence tied to social, moral, or individual recognition rather than strictly biological features.

Did you really need someone to explain that?

Did you really need someone to explain that? — praxis

No. I relied on it to make my point and ask a question that hasn’t been addressed. I bolded it so you wouldn’t miss it:

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

How is that not consistent? Babies aren’t people either then? Which is fine if you want to be consistent.

And what do you mean by “aspects”? “Aspects of existence”? How is that meaningful to you? And what is “individual recognition” anyway?

When does “individual recognition” become an “aspect” of “existence”? Something adult persons do in their sleep?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

What leads you to believe it is not a person? — NOS4A2

I can’t touch, feel, smell or hear it. Visually it doesn’t look like a person to me. Do you see a person?

what is “individual recognition” anyway? — Fire Ologist

Referring to someone as a human being emphasizes their biological identity as a member of the species Homo sapiens. Referring to someone as a person focuses on qualities that go beyond biology—like individuality. In the following image, we can see clear meaningful differences that distinguish two persons in the upper portion of the image. The bottom portion of the image shows virtually identical twin embryos. There's nothing to distinguish the twin embryos as different persons so how can they be persons?

Your question about two identical twin human zygotes and whether they can both be persons if there is no way to distinguish them is a good one and interesting. But if you would:

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

Basically, the same question from way way back that I’ve asked multiple people over and over to directly address in any way: If a human zygote is not a “person” and a human adult is a “person”,is a human newborn baby a “person” and please explain your answer either way in light of the above quote.

Deeply held beliefs about the sanctity of a factory labor supply?

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

A zygote can develop into multiple persons.

the same question from way way back that I’ve asked multiple people over and over to directly address in any way — Fire Ologist

You asked specifically about the aspect of individual recognition in personhood and I responded. You said my response was interesting and good. We don’t need to go through every aspect of personhood do we?

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

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.

Without appealing to essences, we can define SORTALS - a set of properties that we use to segregate objects into sets. It is conceptual, like set theory, not metaphysical. So we could define "having a beard" as "facial hair growth with a mean length of 5cm", and thus sort men into the bearded and unbearded in this way. My point is that there's no objective basis for defining a sortal in this way, when there is vagueness in the concept of what we're trying to distinguish.

We could define "individual human being" in such a way that we could sort the objects of the world on this basis. But there will be some degree of arbitrariness to it, at the boundaries. For most purposes, the boundary conditions don't matter. For abortion, it does.

We don’t need to go through every aspect of personhood do we? — praxis

Absolutely not. Probably a bottomless pit.

But, won’t you just say, whatever the qualities are that make whatever a person is, a newborn baby is (or is not) a person?

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.

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?

A zygote can develop into multiple persons.

All the more reason to let it live.

You're ignoring my point: a zygote is not identical with an individual human being. Rather, they are a material that have the potential for developing human being(s).

In theory, your skin cells (which contain a complete set of your DNA) could be manipulated into developing into human beings.

“Material” doesn’t encapsulate what it is and what is occurring, whether it is living or non-living, and so on. Everything in there is a material by definition. 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.

Night - hi. Why did you say "organism"?

Just going by the definition used by

 note that the act of abortion itself, the act of killing this organism

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.

No, we're talking about the medical term, "abortion." They're both abortion. You're just separating the two to appeal to emotion.

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

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.

It's true that every adult human's existence can be tracked back to a specific zygote. Similarly, every oak tree can be traced back to a specific acorn - but an acorn is not an oak tree. An acorn merely has the potential to develop into an oak tree, and a zygote merely has the potential to develop into 1 or more human beings.

and a zygote merely has the potential to develop into 1 or more human beings. — Relativist

And 2 zygotes have the potential to develop into 1 human being (a chimera).

Much like a sperm and an ovum have the potential to develop into 1 human being.

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.

The genetics only distinguishes the zygotic human being from the rest of his environment, ie, from his parents. But I also included the principium individuationis, his location in space and time, as the marker of his uniqueness.

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.

Agreed.

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.

It occupies its own unique and distinct position in space and time. A zygote is alive. At no point does a zygote die and get replaced by another living being. If left to live a zygote can continue his life, without interruption, for upwards to one hundred years.

Twins are individuated at the zygote level until it reproduces asexually, then there are two individuals.

Let’s be careful and precise. We are philosophers here.

I recognize the image on the right [new born human baby] as a person. — praxis

So an instance of a “new born human baby” (which can be depicted as you’ve depicted it), equals an instance of “a person”. Recognizing a new born baby is recognizing a person.

That answers one of my questions directly and I appreciate that.

But the question isn’t really answered without some of your reasoning because if a human zygote is NOT recognized as a person, but a new born baby IS recognized as a person, you must have some sense of what a “person” means in order to not recognize those meanings in a human zygote. So what does a “person” mean such that you recognize these meanings in a new born baby but not a zygote?

Basically, why do you think a new born baby is a person? What “personal” things are you recognizing about a new born baby?

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?

The one on the left is what the one on the right looked like about 9 months earlier. In those 9 months, what changed for you?

Basically, why do you think a new born baby is a person? — Fire Ologist

I already explained because I recognize it as such.

What “personal” things are you recognizing about a new born baby? — Fire Ologist

We can see many personal things about the baby in the picture. It looks caucasian, has light hair, etc.

If you recognize the image on the left as a person, can you explain how you recognize it as a person?