So there could be reasons to value the life of an adult more than the life of a baby? — Fire Ologist
A test for benevolence is to see how much a person has sacrificed for you. As Jesus says, there is no greater love than laying down one's life for one's friends. In less extreme examples, if someone is devoting their time, money, and energy to you in a way that clearly imposes a cost on themselves, that is a clear sign that they value you. A public figure might tell the public the truth in a manner that has negative consequences for himself, which shows genuine concern for the public. Although, sometimes crafty people can feign self-sacrifice for malicious purposes. — Brendan Golledge
As for intelligence, you can look for a consistent record of success. — Brendan Golledge
No reasonable person could read all three beings as morally hte same, without doing some loop-de-loops which rest on embarrassment, basically. — AmadeusD
What would you say to someone who basically agreed with you, but said they did not find newborns and infants as valuable as full persons? — Fire Ologist
Notice I’m more interested in what people think a person is and what people think a new life is in the abortion discussion, but not so interested in talking about the moral implications. — Fire Ologist
But someone says a zygote isn’t an early moment in the one life of a human being, a person, and I’m interested in their reasoning. — Fire Ologist
Newborns are barely different than a small fetus when it comes to making choices, awareness like a human adult, etc. I don’t see it to be consistent to say you value the fetus more after its birth. The fetus once born is as feckless as a lump of cells.
The values folks seem to already know the adult is the most valued and by the time you get to the zygote stage, you obviously have nothing at all that would be valued like the adult. But the phrase “zygote is obviously nothing like the adult” seems to be based only cursory, surface observation, and when this quick treatment is left as good enough for value judgments, it leads to what I see as inconsistent logic (who are all the humans) and inconsistent value judgments (why do we value infants like they are persons like Mrs Smith). — Fire Ologist
I agree abortion ought to be permitted. What a pregnant woman does or does not do with her pregnancy and her body is none of anyone else’s business, particularly not the state. — Fire Ologist
I can’t conclude a human zygote lump of cells is anything other than a stage in the one life of on individual human being. Adults can be called lumps of cells too, so that doesn’t help. — Fire Ologist
Presumably they do not like the conclusion, that abortion ought be permitted. — Banno
Whatever rights we might grant to a cysts, the rights of the woman carrying it ought take precedence. Mrs Smith is of greater value than a collection of cells.
I'm sorry you cannot see this. — Banno
Arguably, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, a hallmark of many systems, seems to rule out brute facts. — Count Timothy von Icarus
"that the order of becoming and existence must be intelligible; that no phase of the process of contingent existence is intelligible in itself; and that therefore contingent existence is always relative existence, essentially referred, qua existing to another.” — Count Timothy von Icarus
let's call it phenomenological level in everyday life, right? We do somehow, sort of understand each other. Probably never to a "full extent", but somehow we do try. — KrisGl
we just make sense of others the best we can. — Tom Storm
To follow the notion that others are simply not our's to understand, to be radical about that would indeed lead to chaos. — KrisGl
Interesting. Why have you always assumed that? — KrisGl
Have you ever heard of his notion of loyalty to loyalty? I find it moving. — KrisGl
My own existence is certainly a fact - cogito ergo sum - but not of the kind that was mooted in the post I was responding to. After all, even Descartes himself noted that the existence of the world might be a spell cast by an evil daemon. — Wayfarer
Another argument is that what exists according to natural science, does not include the observing subject who stipulates the axioms upon which it rests. That is the topic of the innumerable and interminable discussions about the hard problem of consciousness. It is also the major topic of both phenomenology and existentialism, which will probably not be cowed with threats of ‘brute fact’. :wink: — Wayfarer
My nights I spend at a bar, smoking and drinking way too much, hunched over some book, being asocial, surrounded by good people who are used to it, like me anyway, and for the most part have no fucking idea why the heck I'm doing all of this. Maybe some of you can sympathize a little more. ;) — KrisGl
What does it mean to understand? Is this a term only to be used when "success" is evident - to understand is to understand correctly or there is no understanding at all - or is there such a thing as "wrong understanding"? — KrisGl
Truth be told, it is difficult to find people interested in these authors, so I hope to find some companionship in this forum. — KrisGl
I’m posting that video here because I think it challenges us to re-consider what constitutes language. To what extent is an immediate relationship with our non-human surroundings a language? — Joshs
Maybe you should take that with a grain of salt given that my favorite Chandler movie is the “Long Goodbye” by Robert Altman. That was widely criticized as being far from the standard vision of Philip Marlowe, but it’s one of my all-time favorites. — T Clark
Neither of you have demonstrated that at all: Banno just keeps blanketly asserting "it's obvious!". — Bob Ross
Are you saying the religious shrug their shoulders to worldwide hunger and withhold support where their non-religious counterparts are trying to assist? — Hanover
I'd also hold that the sanctity of human life encompasses the right to live to the ability to one's creation, so much so that I would be violating your human rights if I held you against your will in my basement, yet I don't think it hypocritical to incarcerate the guilty. What this means is we draw a distinction between justifiable imprisonment and unjustifiable imprisonment.
We can do the same for killing. Examples would be war, self-defense, and punishment. I get that you disagree that capital punishment should go in that list perhaps for a variety of other reasons, but someone who is opposed to murder can consistently and non-hypocritically be in favor or capital punishment just as someone can object to an unjustifiable X but support a justifiable X. — Hanover
I expect to come back around to liking it down the line, when I might try a different translation. — Jamal
what do you mean. Please tell me. Please — AlienVareient
the result of some dogma that demands zygote = person without much thought into what that means and it obviously comes from a religious tradition foreign to my own that violates my views of the who we all are. — Hanover
And I say all this because I am about as religious a poster as posts here — Hanover
As a general matter, I advocate for sanctifying life, not just in a humanist way, but in a way that truly seperates life and humanity in a mystical way. — Hanover
Your question is illicit. The standing of Mrs Smith ought far surpass whatever standing you might grant the blastocyst — Banno
Just looking for some tips and suggestions. Answers appreciated : ) — AlienVareient
To be a living system is to maintain a normative pattern of interacting with an environment in the midst of changing conditions. Sense-making is about pragmatically relevant actions , not concordance with ‘reality as it is’, whatever that’s supposed to mean. This doesn’t make what sense-making reveals as an illusion, or mere appearance as opposed to the really real. It shows us that this is what ‘reality as it is’ IS in itself. — Joshs
Our understandings of the world aren’t ideas in the head, they are activities of engagement.All other corners of the world untouched by our participation also are agentially perspectival with respect to themselves via their interaffecting within configurative patterns of interaction. Hoffman and Chalmers still think of consciousness as an Ideal substance. — Joshs
All this is insubstantial in the argument I presented to you. We have on the one hand a woman, perhaps a nurse, perhaps a CEO, perhaps a sister, mother, daughter, perhaps a care giver or volunteer. Someone who can express their needs, who makes plans and seeks to fulfil them and who has a place in our world.
We have on the other hand, a group of cells.
That you value those cells over the person who must carry them is heinous. — Banno
What explains a Habermas scholar being fooled by Habermas? Dumb? Perverse? Doesn’t really seem to fit. What, then? — J
What about an asylum seeker. — Samlw
To be a law of logic, a principle must hold in complete generality.
No principles hold in complete generality.
There are no laws of logic. — Banno
She does not wish to conclude that there are no laws of logic, and so argues that a principle need not hold in complete generality. Instead, they hold in given logics. — Banno
But the substantive question relates to knowledge, which is why my first post in this thread concentrated on that topic. — Leontiskos