Originally posted by Halitose1. Yes.
Does uniqueness entail intrinsic value?
Empathy perhaps, however, does that merit fundamental rights and protection? I have empathy for a mentally retarded chimpanzee, do they now somehow deserve fundamental rights?
2. IMO, yes. There might be extenuating circumstances.
3. Ask a chimpanzee.
Originally posted by HalitoseBut therein lies a great problem. I agree with 1 & 2. I do not, however, agree that 1 & 2 dispel all notions of an elitist status. There are many who believe that we have evolved to a point where we are able to interact (albeit tenuously) with the "energy" of all existence. With this ability comes a great responsibility not to destroy the very existence with which we are in tune.
1) and 2) are to dispel all religious notions of the human race having some elitist status, hence the arbitrary concept of personhood.
I suggest that if you want your premise to be that "we as humans should not be regarded as having any sort of natural superiority to other portions of existence, and therefore have no responsibility to maintain those other portions," that you state it as such, and not rely on a somewhat related--but not wholly sufficient--alternative.
Furthermore, it seems that your number 3 specifically creates an elitist status and the criteria for it; criteria that I believe are very similar to existing guidelines in our society (for example, with IQs below 40, you're not often held accountable for legal mistakes due to a lack of mental competency).
Therefore, it is obvious that if those listed in number 3 are superior to the rest of all existence (since that seems to be what you're trying to say) that in that case killing anything not covered by number 3 would be a triviality compared to killing anything that is covered in number 3.
Originally posted by HalitoseInstead, let me ask you these seemingly inane questions: Are you a lying, stealing adulterer? Do you kill and eat babies, or 'euthanize' the mentally challenged for fun and profit? Drink unto severe excess and then go out for a nice drive on the highway? Burn down a neighbours house with him and his family inside because his dog crapped on your lawn? Any of those things part of your personality?
Please propound on... especially the fundamental rights part.
Originally posted by David Con or off me meds?lol jk
Instead, let me ask you these seemingly inane questions: Are you a lying, stealing adulterer? Do you kill and eat babies, or 'euthanize' the mentally challenged for fun and profit? Drink unto severe excess and then go out for a nice drive on the highway? Burn down a neighbours house with him and his family inside because his dog crapped on your lawn? Any of those things part of your personality?
Irrespective of what 'great' philosopher you got this from, this list
is absurd or, at best, unclear.
Originally posted by Halitose
3)To qualify for "personhood" an entity needs to exhibit most of the following:
What does 'most' mean? 8/14? 12/14? How is 'most' selected such
that it is not arbitrary (the opinion of others)?
3.1)Minimum intelligence: Below IQ 40 individuals might not be persons; below IQ 20 they are definitely not persons.
What does 'might' mean? And why the Intelligence Quotient scale
when there have been many studies to demonstrate that the methods
of acquiring these numbers can be flawed? What is the IQ of a
human entity in a coma? Post-stroke with limited phyiscal capacity?
Asleep?
3.2)Self-awareness
Does this mean the ability to be self aware? Is a newborn self
aware? Is a person in a coma or asleep self aware? Or does the
author mean the capacity for self awareness?
3.3)Self-control: Because a person understands cause and effect, he or she can effectively work toward fulfilling freely-selected goals.
Does a 5-year old understand cause and effect? What about an
alcoholic or smoker? A lionesses hunt in packs and engage in specific
hunting patterns which optimize the likelihood of a kill. Do they
understand cause and effect?
3.4)A Sense of time: Persons can allocate their time toward purposes; non-persons 'live' completely in the present moment, like other animals.
Chipmunks store up for the winter. Do they have a sense of time?
My wife is always late for everything. Does she have a sense of time?
3.5)A Sense of futurity: Persons are concerned about their futures; persons lay plans and carry them out; they build their futures.
My uncle Phil is in perpetual credit card debt. Yet, he continues to
buy things he doesn't need and puts the expense on the card. Does
he have a sense of futurity? In fact, the average credit card debt of
an American is high four figures to low five figures. Do they have a
sense of futurity? What about people in asylums who cannot interact
with the world in a meaningful way (schizophrenics, say). Do they have
a sense of futurity?
3.6)A Sense of the past: Persons have memories of their pasts; they can recall facts at will; they honor the past.
What about people who have suffered brain trauma and have lost
their long-term memories of events in their childhood? What about
similar people who have lost their ability to recall things in the recent
past (older people with senility or dementia)?
3.7)The Capacity to relate to others: Persons are social animals; they form bonds with others, both intimate and collective.
Many mammals are social animals (in fact, most!). Fish and ants
are social creatures, too. What about people who choose to live in
hermititude? Are they less of a person as a result?
3.8)Concern for others: Persons always reach out to others; non-persons draw into themselves, even pathologically.
Person always reach out for others? That's a load of crap and you
know it. It is a demonstrable fact that, in America say, a small
percentage of people (5%, say) have most of the wealth (40%, say).
This is the case all around the world. There are hungry people near
you and me right now, yet we have had more than enough to eat and
the leisure to play chess.
By contrast, many animals have pack mentalities which enable entities
within their group to survive. Some even have biological altruism
(like fruit bats) which involve sacrifice of the individual for the good of
the pack (although, ultimately, this benefits the individual).
3.9) Communication: Persons communicate with other persons; if they become completely cut off, they become sub-personal.
How are we defining communication? Animals clearly communicate
with each other to indicate the location of food, danger, shelter, and
mating.
3.10) Control of existence: Persons take responsibility for their lives; those who do not guide their own behavior are sub-personal.
Some Christians, for example, believe that their lives unfold according
to a Divine Plan. Their existence is not controled by themselves but
God's Providence. Are they sub-personal?
3.11) Curiosity: Persons naturally want to know. If they lose this desire to know, they are less human.
I note a slip of the tongue here: the author says less human
rather than less of a person, which indicates his bias. And, the
notion that non-human animals are not curious is idiotic, since we see
this tendency both in the wild and in captivity.
3.13) Balance of rationality and feeling: Persons have both reason and emotion; one who is distorted either way is not whole.
What balance does this author consider healthy (or 'wholesome'😉 and
how does this author determine that that balance (or range) is not
distorted? How does he measure feelings or rationale in a cat or
chimpanzee?
3.14) Idiosyncrasy: All persons are different from one another; the less individuality, the less personhood.
Ask any horse breeder if all horses are the same. Horses have
dispositions, and they are dumb animals! Chimps, gorillas, dolphins,
elephants, a whole host of other animals.
The short of this is: this guy is being especially vague and, many
times, absurd. I can't get any further in analyzing an argument which
rests upon specious or poorly-defined terminology.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Halitose4) Any animal with 3) is considerable for legal and moral protection.
7) The mentally insane, senile and catatonic that do not possess the requirements of 3) are therefore non-persons.
5) Any animal without 3) is not legaly or morally considerable.
6) New-born infants do not possess the requirements of 3) and are therefore non-persons.
7) The mentally insane, senile and catatonic that do not possess the requirements of 3) are therefore non-persons.
All of a sudden he goes from 'most' to 'all'? Or did he mean
'most of 3)'
What about this proposition?
7a) The asleep or unconscious do not possess 3) are therefore
non-persons and are not worthy of moral consideration. Therefore,
to kill someone in their sleep is morally permissible.
Certainly, you see this as absurd.
Nemesio