Originally posted by bbarrI'd like to discuss this further and will be getting back to it. However, I am a person with the capacity to suffer, and the particular brand of suffering in store for me tomorrow is school, prefaced by the vastly worse form of suffering called ''waking up at 6''. As I've not slept too much this week, I'll have to say bonne nuit, Bennett.
I think that having the capacity to suffer is a necessary, though not sufficient condition for being a person. However, I do think that having the capacity to suffer is a sufficient condition for moral considerability. I think a necessary condition for being a person is being self-aware. I think a necessary condition for being a person is being rational. B ...[text shortened]... ust a first pass, however. There are probably revisions that need to be made in this account.
Originally posted by bbarr
I think a necessary condition for being a person is being self-aware.
self awareness is only known by the self and so seems an impossible element to judge from the exterior. surely this only allows me to claim that i am a person and does not assist in judging others.
Originally posted by flexmoreThis is surely too strong a claim. We can fairly easily determine the presence of self-awareness in other humans. Everytime someone responds to the question "How do you feel", that someone has presented evidence that they are self-aware. What you must really be wondering is how it is possible to determine the presence of self-awareness in creatures who are unable to use language. Is that correct?
self awareness is only known by the self and so seems an impossible element to judge from the exterior. surely this only allows me to claim that i am a person and does not assist in judging others.
Originally posted by bbarryes, kind of.
This is surely too strong a claim. We can fairly easily determine the presence of self-awareness in other humans. Everytime someone responds to the question "How do you feel", that someone has presented evidence that they are self-aware. What you must really be wondering is how it is possible to determine the presence of self-awareness in creatures who are unable to use language. Is that correct?
in which case can you use your judgement to determine that a being is not selfaware? even with language.
how can any being not be self aware?
Originally posted by flexmorePresumably, like other cognitive capacities, self-awareness arises from the complex functional organization of the brain. One source of evidence that may help us determine whether a creature has self-awareness would be an investigation into the functional organization of the nervous system of creatures of that sort. If creatures of that sort lack a functional organization that approaches the complexity of the functional organization of the human (for instance, if their cognitive architecture lacked a hierarchical structure, or lacked the property of recursion) then that would indicate that representations of internal states were not being formed and used in cognition, and thus self-awareness would be impossible.
yes, kind of.
in which case can you use your judgement to determine that a being is not selfaware? even with language.
how can any being not be self aware?
Alternatively, we could undertake detailed investigation into the behavioral complexity of a creature. If, as seems plausible, self-awareness contributes to a creature's capacity for flexible and adaptive behavior, then that's a prima facie reason to think that creatures lacking such behavioral properties also lack self-awareness.
In short, what I'm suggesting is just the sort of empirical investigation that goes on in cognitive science and cognitive ethology. If you were looking for a priori means of determining whether a creature has self-awareness I'm afraid I've nothing to offer. But then, there are no a priori ways of determining if other humans have self-awareness. There are no a priori reasons for thinking there is an external world. There are no a priori reasons for thinking that God exists, etc., etc. So perhaps an empirical investigation, with its attendant doubt, isn't so bad after all.
Bennett
Originally posted by huntingbearI have to apologize for a small measure of deceit in this post of mine 🙂
The only scientifically sound answer is: at conception. The conceptate is a genetically unique human individual.
I deliberately overstated the case in order to get certain balls rolling, and it worked.
I see the abortion question in a light which I will make clear with the following analogy:
You are taken to a remote location and put in a small room with a red button on the wall. From outside a window you can see, a mile or so away, a small building. A man in a lab coat walks in and tells you, "If you push that red button, two things will happen. A) You will experience and orgasm. B) That building you see out the window will explode. There may or may not be a person in that building. If there is, the person will die in the explosion." Then he walks out. Do you push the button?
Since we must risk error in our judgment about whether an unborn child is a person, would it not be best to err on the side of caution? We can speculate and invent all sorts of arbitrary 'cut-off points' for when a developing child becomes a 'person' or a 'life' or whatever, but for the most part we seem to be playing word games. The very good point was made that science, ie the scientific method, cannot answer for us when a human being becomes a 'person.' Personally, I wouldn't push the red button and I wouldn't feel justified in deliberately destroying a living human being on the grounds that it might not be a person.
As for self-awareness, I don't believe it is fully developed in a young infant, say three months. But I do believe a three-month-old child is a person. I also believe a totally comatose human being is still a person, regardless of whether his or her self-awareness is intact.
I believe being human is sufficient (but not necessary) for being a person, but since I believe that largely on information contained in a collection of writings which I consider to be the revealved Word of God, I'm not going to get much further into that in the public forums. I stand by my decision not to debate religion in these forums.
However the analogy I provided in my previous post reflects my anti-abortion feelings independent of my religion, as I have been against abortion for much longer than I have been a Christian.
Originally posted by huntingbearFirst, there is no reason to think that in all cases of abortion there is a chance that a person is killed. A zygote, for instance, has no properties in virtue of which it makes sense to say that it is a person. It neither has the capacity to suffer nor the capacity for self-awareness. Zygotes just don't have the neural complexity necessary for such mental traits. In short, it is nothing more than a bundle of cells that may, eventually, become a creature with such properties. Since we can be certain that the zygote is not a person, no person is killed in early abortions.
Since we must risk error in our judgment about whether an unborn child is a person, would it not be best to err on the side of caution? We can speculate and invent all sorts of arbitrary 'cut-off points' for when a developing child be ...[text shortened]... whatever, but for the most part we seem to be playing word games.
Second, although you may call the cut off points arbitrary, such an allegation requires argument, not mere stipulation. Furthermore, even if the cut off points between personhood and non-personhood were blurry, this doesn't entail that there aren't both clear instances of persons and clear instances of non-persons. Consider an analogy: The cut off point between being bald and not being bald are blurry (how many hairs must one have to be not bald?) and yet there are both clear instances of baldness and clear instances of non-baldness. So not only have you given us no reason to accept your stipulation, but even if your stipulation was correct, it wouldn't support your conclusion.
Third although you may call the arguments I've presented word games, again this requires argument and not mere stipulation. Denegrating a valid argument does nothing to lessen its force, after all. The distinctions I've drawn are well founded, and they track moral intuitions about our obligations towards different sorts of creatures. Reading your post one wonders: do you consider any act of drawing a distinction a 'word game', or merely the drawing of distinctions that undermine your position?
Originally posted by huntingbearWell, I don't think that self-awareness is fully developed in an infant that young either, but that does nothing to weaken my position. I never claimed that being self-aware was an all-or-nothing affair, nor did I claim that one had to be fully self-aware in order to be a person. But you can't possibly think that an infant that young is a person in the same way an adult human is a person. After all, it makes sense to say of an adult that he or she ought to abide by the moral law; that he or she has responsibilities. It makes no sense to say this about an infant. There are gradations in personhood, with some creatures being merely moral patients and others being full moral agents.
As for self-awareness, I don't believe it is fully developed in a young infant, say three months. But I do believe a three-month-old child is a person. I also believe a totally comatose human being is still a person, regardless of whether his or her self-awareness is intact.
I believe being human is sufficient (but not necessary) for being a person, bu ...[text shortened]... i] of my religion, as I have been against abortion for much longer than I have been a Christian.
Do you think that a human organism that is totally brain-dead is also a person? What about a dead human organism? Presumably you don't think corpses are persons, so it's not just the fact that a thing is an instance of the species homo sapien that suffices for its personhood. There must be some property or other that human organisms generally have in virtue of which you think that being such an organism suffices for personhood. So, I ask you, what is this property?
I would like to first establish that I acknowledge unusual circumstances such as rape, etc. that may deserve consideration in terms of abortion. That said, I propose that your average Joe (or Jane if you want to be p.c.) abortion is nothing more than condoning and assisting stupidity. There are so many contraceptives today that it makes my head spin. If a person can afford an abortion then they can afford a years worth of prevention. If a person can't be bothered to wear a condom, take a pill, get the injection, take a morning after pill, etc., then why should they have a scape goat later on down the line? It's not rocket science. sex=children. A simple solution that eliminates the prospect of abortion for the vast majority. "When" a fetus/child/thing can become labeled a "person" is irrelevant to me. If you are too stupid to stop it, tough. I refuse to condone stupidity.
Originally posted by OmnislashSo I guess you wouldn't condone people who get hurt in traffic accidents because of their own stupidity getting medical treatment?
I would like to first establish that I acknowledge unusual circumstances such as rape, etc. that may deserve consideration in terms of abortion. That said, I propose that your average Joe (or Jane if you want to be p.c.) abortion is nothing more than condoning and assisting stupidity. There are so many contraceptives today that it makes my head spin. If a ...[text shortened]... " is irrelevant to me. If you are too stupid to stop it, tough. I refuse to condone stupidity.
Or people who take part in risky sports like parachuting?
What about people who're stupid enough to smoke tobacco and get lung cancer? Do you think that if they're too stupid to give up, then that's tough?
Just because people get into a position because of stupidity (and don't forget no contraceptive is 100% effective, other than abstinence), doesn't mean we shouldn't allow them to get out of that posistion.
Originally posted by bbarr
First, there is no reason to think that in all cases of abortion there is a chance that a person is killed. A zygote, for instance, has no properties in virtue of which it makes sense to say that it is a person. It neither has the capacity to suffer nor the capacity for self-awareness.
I still don't know why those are necessary conditions of personhood.
Third although you may call the arguments I've presented word games
Well, that wasn't aimed at you or your arguments, or at anyone really. It wasn't aimed at all, really, because I didn't mean it as an attack of any particular position. Perhaps my phrasing was unfortunate. Given a chance to re-write the post now, I wouldn't use the phrase 'word games', and I would try much harder to make it clear that I wasn't attacking any particular person's position. Without further ado, I'll try to explain what I was getting at.
The reason I feel we will run into trouble working so hard to define personhood is that someone might (in seriousness) make the suggestion which Mark made (presumably in jest): Is personhood sufficient reason not to kill someone?
This was really the type of thinking (what little there was) behind my use of the term 'word games.' Even if everyone in the world accepted my belief that personhood comes with being human, I could hardly expect any agreement on the abortion issue. The only agreement would be on the definition of a word. For there would be those who would then decide that mere personhood did not assure an individual the right to live. We can work very, very hard to come up with definitions for terms (like 'person'😉 and still make no progress in the real debate. For example ....
But you can't possibly think that an infant that young is a person in the same way an adult human is a person.
Why not? Is a man with no arms not a person in the same way as a two-armed human is a person? Who's to say that personhood requires self-awareness any more (or less) than it requires arms?
After all, it makes sense to say of an adult that he or she ought to abide by the moral law; that he or she has responsibilities. It makes no sense to say this about an infant. There are gradations in personhood, with some creatures being merely moral patients and others being full moral agents.
Why is moral responsibility a necessary condition for 'full' personhood?
Even if we decide on what it means to be a person, so what?
Questions. Why shouldn't I destroy anything that inconveniences me in some way? Living, human, person, self-aware, morally accountable, capable of suffering.... Why should any properties we identify and define secure the right to life for any possessor of those properties?
That's why I talk about word games. When we succeed in defining 'person,' will we have accomplished anything?
Originally posted by Redmikere: traffic accidents
So I guess you wouldn't condone people who get hurt in traffic accidents because of their own stupidity getting medical treatment?
Or people who take part in risky sports like parachuting?
What about people who're stupid enough to smoke tobacco and get lung cancer? Do you think that if they're too stupid to give up, then that's tough?
Just because peo ...[text shortened]... ve, other than abstinence), doesn't mean we shouldn't allow them to get out of that posistion.
If you step in front of a big rig going 75 miles an hour, correct.
re: parachuting
If you jump without a parachute, correct.
re: tobacco
Unless your name is Joe Camel, correct. (and I smoke)
re: contraceptive
Please see the beginning of my previous post regarding unusual circumstances like rape, etc. For that matter, perhaps you should read my post again and ask me something that is relevant.
And since you infered abortion is a "medical treatment", do you think pregnancy is a disease in need of "treatment"?
Originally posted by OmnislashRe traffic - what if you just jump a red light - denied treatment here as well?
re: traffic accidents
If you step in front of a big rig going 75 miles an hour, correct.
re: parachuting
If you jump without a parachute, correct.
re: tobacco
Unless your name is Joe Camel, correct. (and I smoke)
re: contraceptive
Please see the beginning of my previous post regarding u ...[text shortened]... rtion is a "medical treatment", do you think pregnancy is a disease in need of "treatment"?
You'd deny medical treatment to smokers who get lung cancer?
You'd allow an abortion if the woman said the condom split then?
Pregnancy isn't a disease - not all medical treatment is for diseases.
Originally posted by huntingbearI still don't know why those are necessary conditions of personhood.
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]First, there is no reason to think that in all cases of abortion there is a chance that a person is killed. A zygote, for instance, has no properties in virtue of which it makes sense to say that it is a person. It neither has the capacity to suffer nor the capacity for self-awareness.
I still don't know w ...[text shortened]... lk about word games. When we succeed in defining 'person,' will we have accomplished anything?[/b]
The capacity to suffer is a necessary condition for personhood because it is a necessary confition for having interests. A creature without interests cannot be wronged. Hence, it makes no sense of saying of such a creature that there are obligations owed to it. Our obligations towards a creature begin with its capacity to suffer. It is absurd to say of some creature who can neither think nor suffer, who is not sentient and lacks the capacity for sentience, that it has interests. At most, a zygote has the potential to develop sentience and the potential to develop the capacity to suffer, and this is why abortions become morally troubling later in the pregnancy. In the early stages of pregnancy there are no such capacities, hence no interests that need to be taken into consideration other than those of the parents. The moral status of early abortion can be easily simmed up: No harm, no foul.