Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by vivify
Your argument is boring. You use "sad" or whatever to try to add weight to your argument, like you've won something. It's a childish tactic, but all you have.

Futhermore, you're using imaginary beings for your argument? Truly, without being childish, that actually is sad.

But imagine a human being in a vegetative state: this person can no longer feel ...[text shortened]... y with a person in a vegetative state?

See buddy, my real example, smacks your fake one.

Shades of Kill Bill and the Pussy Wagon. Nice...

Originally posted by sumydid
Shades of Kill Bill and the Pussy Wagon. Nice...

Thank you. Owning bbar was fun.

Originally posted by kd2acz
Yes I think the morning after pill should be illegal, because it terminates human life after conception as far as I understand how it works. My faith did not dictate my belief that life begins at conception, so my faith being true or not does not matter here, the belief is the same. Therefore my argument is it should be illegal because it terminates conceived life.

Why don't you ask the zygote if it was a human?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why don't you ask the zygote if it was a human?

You miss the point.

Originally posted by kd2acz
You miss the point.

No, actually you did.

Labelling a bunch of cells that happen to contain human DNA as "a human life" is really pretty stupid.

And totally and utterly unsupported by science.

A human being has a mind.

A zygote doesn't.

Thus it's not a human.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, actually you did.

Labelling a bunch of cells that happen to contain human DNA as "a human life" is really pretty stupid.

And totally and utterly unsupported by science.

A human being has a mind.

A zygote doesn't.

Thus it's not a human.

Why do you refer to false science all the time to support your arguments? Dasa has told us that false science is made up by ignorant men, who do not know the truth. So it is stupid to believe in false science when you can believe in true religion. 😏

Originally posted by kd2acz
Wow dude, I don't know what to say. If you don't see that a fetus as a part of the human race morally matters without an arguement, I can't help you. Personally I don't think an argument needs to be made. So are you going to answer my questions?

Look, if we presume that the moral properties of an action towards an entity are purely a function of the moral status of that entity, then (as I said above) it's fine to kill for convenience if the entity under consideration does not morally matter. Persons matter, non-persons that can suffer matter, and non-persons that cannot suffer may matter as well, for a few different reasons.

To kill a person for mere convenience is wrong. It's a failure of respect, of compassion, and indicates a profound self-absorption and callousness. It's truly vicious.

To kill a non-person that can suffer for convenience may also be wrong. It's trickier here, but I tend to think that if an entity can suffer; if things can go better or worse for it from its own point of view, then there is a presumption in favor of treating it compassionately. I'm a vegetarian for just this reason. I don't need to eat meat to flourish, so I don't eat meat. I think there is something just objectively, basically wrong with causing suffering for convenience.

But, as an aside, I set the bar for personhood pretty low. On my view, an entity has to be conscious, has to have the capacity to suffer, and has to have just a rudimentary form of rationality (they don't have to be able to speak, do math, etc.); they just need to be able to represent, in some fashion, non-actual states of affairs such that they can endeavor to bring things about. In short, they have to be able to act, not just react. I know this is vague, but I hope it resonates with you.

With entities that are neither persons nor can suffer, things are different. They cannot be harmed, they themselves cannot be treated disrespectfully. If it is wrong to kill them for convenience, the wrongness does not derive merely from their being alive. If it did, it would be wrong to kill plants for convenience. But it's not. So if you can give me a case where both (a) an agent kills an entity that lacks the properties I specified above for personhood and (b) the cases runs deeply afoul of our moral intuitions (i.e., we are disposed to think it's really wrong), then I'll try to provide an analysis.

Originally posted by bbarr
Look, if we presume that the moral properties of an action towards an entity are purely a function of the moral status of that entity, then (as I said above) it's fine to kill for convenience if the entity under consideration does not morally matter. Persons matter, non-persons that can suffer matter, and non-persons that cannot suffer may matter as well, for ...[text shortened]... ., we are disposed to think it's really wrong), then I'll try to provide an analysis.

Certainly you do not see a fertilized human egg within the womb of a woman the same as some growth, like a tumor, mole, or wart, that if that person wants removed and disgarded that it is perfectly fine and should be allowed, do you?

Originally posted by vivify
Your argument is boring. You use "sad" or whatever to try to add weight to your argument, like you've won something. It's a childish tactic, but all you have.

Futhermore, you're using imaginary beings for your argument? Truly, without being childish, that actually is sad.

But imagine a human being in a vegetative state: this person can no longer feel ...[text shortened]... y with a person in a vegetative state?

See buddy, my real example, smacks your fake one.

Right, you don't have a response other than "But those are made-up things!" Yes, exactly, it's called a thought-experiment. They're used to test our moral intuitions, you dimwit.

But you do have an example (though I'm not sure you understand what, if anything, your example shows). At least that's something! Of course, your example presumes something I never claimed. But why would it be otherwise? It's not like you have spent any time actually trying to understand or think clearly about these issues or even about what's been written here. You just sort of vomit stuff up and expect it to be taken seriously. Anyway...

Here's my response:

Let's call the entity in your example 'S'. S is biologically human and was, but is no longer, a person. S no longer has the capacity for consciousness or any of the other properties I take to be criterial of personhood. Nothing can go better or worse from S's point of view, since S no longer has a point of view. There is nothing it is like to be S. S is, essentially, the human shell that used to house a person.

Now, is it morally OK to treat S in any way whatever? Obviously not. It would be profoundly immoral (and super creepy) to use S as a sex-toy.

What does this show? It shows that the moral constraints on our behavior towards an entity are not solely a function of the moral status of that entity. But, please note, I never said they were.

"But why is it wrong?" you'll whine. Here is why: First, treating S in such a manner is probably disrespectful towards the former person that used to inhabit S. I say 'probably' because you can imagine really kinky conditions under which it may not be wrong (e.g., your spouse used to embody S, and you two had an agreement...).

I mean, consider the following riff on your example: Suppose S did not used to house a person, but was created in a lab. Suppose S is biologically alive, has human DNA, etc, but was never a person. Would it be as morally wrong to treat S as a sex-toy? I don't think so. I think it would be incredibly creepy. But there is something less disrespectful about it. I think this is because there is no person, or former person, you're failing to honor or respect. There were no wishes or goals or advance directives from some former person that you'd be contravening. There are no others to whom a former person bore particular relationships that you would be failing to honor or respect. In this case S is an entity and an object, not an entity and a former subject, and that seems to matter.

Second, treating S in such a manner probably indicates something really messed up about your own character. It probably indicates that you take as sexual objects entities that do not or can not reciprocate, are helpless, etc. You, in a deep sense, objectify the objects of your sexual desire. That's weird, and yucky, and gross. I think that the sense of outrage from your example comes from the disrespect to a former person, and the sense of disgust comes from this creepiness.

Anyway, I hope now you understand how you could turn your example into an actual argument. And that you understand how your argument relies on a presumption you didn't grasp. And how once this presumption was brought to light, how it was pretty easy to respond. And how silly you are for thinking that you could ever, ever own me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Certainly you do not see a fertilized human egg within the womb of a woman the same as some growth, like a tumor, mole, or wart, that if that person wants removed and disgarded that it is perfectly fine and should be allowed, do you?

Nope.

Originally posted by bbarr
Nope.

Good.

Originally posted by bbarr
Right, you don't have a response other than "But those are made-up things!" Yes, exactly, it's called a thought-experiment. They're used to test our moral intuitions, you dimwit. [/quote]
Ah, name-calling. Sure fire signs of hurt feelings getting smacked around in an argument.

Creating mythical creatures and scenerios to support yourself is laug e that believe in god, and exactly zero people that believe in your vulcan example.

But you do have an example (though I'm not sure you understand what, if anything, your example shows). At least that's something! Of course, your example presumes something I never claimed.

Never claimed? You claimed "personhood" is based on things like having a mind, and the ability to feel. I can easily quote where you said this, and which is why I gave my example using your claims. So it seems that now, you can't even keep up with your own arguments.

Here's my response:

Let's call the entity in your example 'S'. S is biologically human and was, but is no longer, a person. S no longer has the capacity for consciousness or any of the other properties I take to be criterial of personhood. Nothing can go better or worse from S's point of view, since S no longer has a point of view. There is nothing it is like to be S. S is, essentially, the human shell that used to house a person.

Now, is it morally OK to treat S in any way whatever? Obviously not. It would be profoundly immoral (and super creepy) to use S as a sex-toy.

What does this show? It shows that the moral constraints on our behavior towards an entity are not solely a function of the moral status of that entity. But, please note, I never said they were.

Beautiful. So you admit that a human doesn't need to actively have a discernable ability to feel, think, or have working mind in order to be deserving of respect.

"But why is it wrong?" you'll whine. Here is why: First, treating S in such a manner is probably disrespectful towards the former person that used to inhabit S. I say 'probably' because you can imagine really kinky conditions under which it may not be wrong (e.g., your spouse used to embody S, and you two had an agreement...).

Why give respect to a being that can't be hurt, has no ability to be hurt, or know that it's being disrespected? No actual harm is coming, because the person in my example has no capacity to be harmed. Because if "personhood" is your criteria for respect, you haven't made any justification why we should respect what you would consider a non-person. Without justifying why, your argument is worthless.

And if I wanted to be just a childish as you, I'd add "this sad". But even better than that, because you haven't justified your position, you remain owned.

We're waiting.

Originally posted by vivify

But you do have an example (though I'm not sure you understand what, if anything, your example shows). At least that's something! Of course, your example presumes something I never claimed.

Never claimed? You claimed "personhood" is based on things like having a mind, and the ability to feel. I can easily quote where you said this, and wh ...[text shortened]... u haven't justified your position, you remain owned.

We're waiting.

Now go back and read our discussion again. Try to pay attention. If you still don't understand the source of your confusion, I'll continue to educate you.

Originally posted by bbarr
Now go back and read our discussion again. Try to pay attention. If you still don't understand the source of your confusion, I'll continue to educate you.

You said treating the person in my example is "probably" wrong, but never explained why. Please, educate me.

Originally posted by vivify

But you do have an example (though I'm not sure you understand what, if anything, your example shows). At least that's something! Of course, your example presumes something I never claimed.

Never claimed? You claimed "personhood" is based on things like having a mind, and the ability to feel. I can easily quote where you said this, and wh u haven't justified your position, you remain owned.

We're waiting.

It appears bbarr gives some respect for a fertilized human egg in the womb of a woman. At least more respect than a tumor, mole, or wart that the woman might want to get rid of. This seems to indicate he does not believe the woman should be able to get rid of this life form lke the others. Does that help?