Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Morality's continuum

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human? At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being. The time between when it was not human and when it first becomes one is infinitely short, and this difference is all that separates good from evil. My question is: how can something infinitely small in degree account for the grave implications derived from it. How can something truly be moral when it only beats the immoral by an infinitely small amount? Infinitely small would seem to imply arbitrary and insignificant, and make morality based on it arbitrary and insignificant as well. Somewhere on the continuum of murder and manslaughter, there is a point at which we are to send someone away for life when an infinitely small difference would justly place them in jail for a few years. Does moral grayness come into play? If so, how is one to go about resolving a 'gray' moral conundrum?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 11:40:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human? At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being. The time between when it was not human and when it first becomes one is infinitely short, and this difference is all that separates good from evil. My question is: how can something infinitely small in degree account for the grave implications derived from it.

That infinitely small change is the change from one classification of thing to another. The concepts of certain things, no matter how similar, are different only in the essentials. The difference between two situations cannot be ignored just because the essentials differ only in a small degree- they still differ, and that's what matters.

How can something truly be moral when it only beats the immoral by an infinitely small amount?

Because it beats the immoral by any amount, no matter how small?

Infinitely small would seem to imply arbitrary and insignificant, and make morality based on it arbitrary and insignificant as well.

Where do you get this idea?

Somewhere on the continuum of murder and manslaughter, there is a point at which we are to send someone away for life when an infinitely small difference would justly place them in jail for a few years. Does moral grayness come into play? If so, how is one to go about resolving a 'gray' moral conundrum?

Read Rand's "The Cult of Moral Grayness" in her VoS.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2013 11:46:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human?

Why is that true?

At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being. The time between when it was not human and when it first becomes one is infinitely short, and this difference is all that separates good from evil. My question is: how can something infinitely small in degree account for the grave implications derived from it. How can something truly be moral when it only beats the immoral by an infinitely small amount?

I don't think I share your conception of morality, so I can't answer those questions. Have you ever read Dawkins' on the "disconnected mind"?

http://www.animal-rights-library.com...

Infinitely small would seem to imply arbitrary and insignificant, and make morality based on it arbitrary and insignificant as well. Somewhere on the continuum of murder and manslaughter, there is a point at which we are to send someone away for life when an infinitely small difference would justly place them in jail for a few years. Does moral grayness come into play? If so, how is one to go about resolving a 'gray' moral conundrum?

Grey matters call for grey matter.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 4:20:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This seems to go from the fact that in science there is great difficulty in pinning down where a life begins, to the obvious corollary where someone is very-close-almost-human-by-a-second-to-go, and yet still as valuable as the creature existing months ago and so much further away from being human. In other words, it rehashes a Soites paradox to question whether morality can exist with indeterminates.

The problem of course is one in abortion, but it is due to the abortion example, not due to a problem with morality. The beginning of personhood is indeterminate, but the moral value is not. If we apply morality to, say, murder, there are no indeterminates and it becomes as easily solvable to a Kantian ethicist or egoist as it does to an Ideal Observer theorist or a utilitarian.

Taken with the abortion example specifically though, saying it is a problem niche in abortion can be seen as a cop out. Its solutions, therefore, ought to be given as possibilities. One is an adaptation of Unger which states that personhood's existence is unknowable as personhood is unknowable. This is because of precisely the Soites paradox of not knowing when someone becomes a person (or when a heap becomes a heap). Another possibility is that personhood is an intersubjective concept, and it is only defined by the community. Therefore, while it is wrong to kill a person (objectively), what a person is depends on the community's definition. However, this leads to accusations of relativism which, though I believe can be defeated in this instance (for it does not depend on an individual's perspective, but on how a community can sustain its existence or how a community evaluates its fellows), still weaken somewhat the gravity of this argument.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:01:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:40:37 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human? At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being. The time between when it was not human and when it first becomes one is infinitely short, and this difference is all that separates good from evil. My question is: how can something infinitely small in degree account for the grave implications derived from it.

That infinitely small change is the change from one classification of thing to another. The concepts of certain things, no matter how similar, are different only in the essentials. The difference between two situations cannot be ignored just because the essentials differ only in a small degree- they still differ, and that's what matters.

How can something truly be moral when it only beats the immoral by an infinitely small amount?

Because it beats the immoral by any amount, no matter how small?

Infinitely small would seem to imply arbitrary and insignificant, and make morality based on it arbitrary and insignificant as well.

Where do you get this idea?

Somewhere on the continuum of murder and manslaughter, there is a point at which we are to send someone away for life when an infinitely small difference would justly place them in jail for a few years. Does moral grayness come into play? If so, how is one to go about resolving a 'gray' moral conundrum?

Read Rand's "The Cult of Moral Grayness" in her VoS.

Yeah, I agree with everything you've said, and I've already read the VoS. It's just hard to accept the fact that in one moment it would be a-okay to dispose of a fetus, and then one second later it would constitute an act of murder. It just doesn't seem real.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 9:59:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human?

That doesn't work. Human fingernails and hair are human, as are embryos and sperm cells.

At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being.

Sperm cells and fingernails are human and they be. You need a different test.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 2:36:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 9:59:23 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human?

That doesn't work. Human fingernails and hair are human, as are embryos and sperm cells.


At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being.

Sperm cells and fingernails are human and they be. You need a different test.

No they aren't. And it's sort of irrelevant anyway, just replace 'human' with how I'm using it works just the same.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 3:46:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*Insert usual ike response to morality here*
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 5:53:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/24/2013 3:46:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
*Insert usual ike response to morality here*

Lol

Well, this concerns morality's implementation, so you could discuss the validity of morality within this context without ever agreeing that the context itself is defensible.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2013 6:10:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:46:12 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human?

Why is that true?

At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being. The time between when it was not human and when it first becomes one is infinitely short, and this difference is all that separates good from evil. My question is: how can something infinitely small in degree account for the grave implications derived from it. How can something truly be moral when it only beats the immoral by an infinitely small amount?

I don't think I share your conception of morality, so I can't answer those questions. Have you ever read Dawkins' on the "disconnected mind"?

http://www.animal-rights-library.com...

Infinitely small would seem to imply arbitrary and insignificant, and make morality based on it arbitrary and insignificant as well. Somewhere on the continuum of murder and manslaughter, there is a point at which we are to send someone away for life when an infinitely small difference would justly place them in jail for a few years. Does moral grayness come into play? If so, how is one to go about resolving a 'gray' moral conundrum?

Grey matters call for grey matter.

Abortion was only an example.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 11:30:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human? At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being. The time between when it was not human and when it first becomes one is infinitely short, and this difference is all that separates good from evil. My question is: how can something infinitely small in degree account for the grave implications derived from it. How can something truly be moral when it only beats the immoral by an infinitely small amount? Infinitely small would seem to imply arbitrary and insignificant, and make morality based on it arbitrary and insignificant as well. Somewhere on the continuum of murder and manslaughter, there is a point at which we are to send someone away for life when an infinitely small difference would justly place them in jail for a few years. Does moral grayness come into play? If so, how is one to go about resolving a 'gray' moral conundrum?

"The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human?"

Actually, whether or not it is human has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. "Human" is just a label...
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2013 1:01:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 11:30:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human? At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being. The time between when it was not human and when it first becomes one is infinitely short, and this difference is all that separates good from evil. My question is: how can something infinitely small in degree account for the grave implications derived from it. How can something truly be moral when it only beats the immoral by an infinitely small amount? Infinitely small would seem to imply arbitrary and insignificant, and make morality based on it arbitrary and insignificant as well. Somewhere on the continuum of murder and manslaughter, there is a point at which we are to send someone away for life when an infinitely small difference would justly place them in jail for a few years. Does moral grayness come into play? If so, how is one to go about resolving a 'gray' moral conundrum?

"The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human?"

Actually, whether or not it is human has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. "Human" is just a label...

I agree. A mere label can't be a criterion for moral worth. What's relevent is the capacity to experience states of pain and pleasure.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 8:29:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 1:01:51 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/25/2013 11:30:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human? At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being. The time between when it was not human and when it first becomes one is infinitely short, and this difference is all that separates good from evil. My question is: how can something infinitely small in degree account for the grave implications derived from it. How can something truly be moral when it only beats the immoral by an infinitely small amount? Infinitely small would seem to imply arbitrary and insignificant, and make morality based on it arbitrary and insignificant as well. Somewhere on the continuum of murder and manslaughter, there is a point at which we are to send someone away for life when an infinitely small difference would justly place them in jail for a few years. Does moral grayness come into play? If so, how is one to go about resolving a 'gray' moral conundrum?

"The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human?"

Actually, whether or not it is human has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. "Human" is just a label...

I agree. A mere label can't be a criterion for moral worth. What's relevent is the capacity to experience states of pain and pleasure.

Once again, pick whatever progression you think entails rights and apply it to the situation.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 5:54:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/25/2013 1:01:51 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/25/2013 11:30:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human? At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being. The time between when it was not human and when it first becomes one is infinitely short, and this difference is all that separates good from evil. My question is: how can something infinitely small in degree account for the grave implications derived from it. How can something truly be moral when it only beats the immoral by an infinitely small amount? Infinitely small would seem to imply arbitrary and insignificant, and make morality based on it arbitrary and insignificant as well. Somewhere on the continuum of murder and manslaughter, there is a point at which we are to send someone away for life when an infinitely small difference would justly place them in jail for a few years. Does moral grayness come into play? If so, how is one to go about resolving a 'gray' moral conundrum?

"The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human?"

Actually, whether or not it is human has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. "Human" is just a label...

I agree. A mere label can't be a criterion for moral worth. What's relevent is the capacity to experience states of pain and pleasure.

"Pain" and "pleasure" are both labels.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 6:21:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here is how to tell if it is human or not human:
All humans have 46 chromosomes. If the fetus has 46 chromosomes, it is human.
If it will most likely eventually be born as a baby, which is human, then it is human. In other words, an egg is not human because it will not become human. However, a fertilized egg will become a baby in nine months. Thus, it is human.

The first point is stronger than the second, but both are valid.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 8:01:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 6:21:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Here is how to tell if it is human or not human:
All humans have 46 chromosomes. If the fetus has 46 chromosomes, it is human.
If it will most likely eventually be born as a baby, which is human, then it is human. In other words, an egg is not human because it will not become human. However, a fertilized egg will become a baby in nine months. Thus, it is human.

The first point is stronger than the second, but both are valid.

A headless body has 46 chromosomes, too. The arguments based on these types of things are fatuous.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 10:37:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 5:54:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/25/2013 1:01:51 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/25/2013 11:30:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human? At some point along a fetus' development (should it eventually grow into an adult), it will attain status as a human being. The time between when it was not human and when it first becomes one is infinitely short, and this difference is all that separates good from evil. My question is: how can something infinitely small in degree account for the grave implications derived from it. How can something truly be moral when it only beats the immoral by an infinitely small amount? Infinitely small would seem to imply arbitrary and insignificant, and make morality based on it arbitrary and insignificant as well. Somewhere on the continuum of murder and manslaughter, there is a point at which we are to send someone away for life when an infinitely small difference would justly place them in jail for a few years. Does moral grayness come into play? If so, how is one to go about resolving a 'gray' moral conundrum?

"The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human?"

Actually, whether or not it is human has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. "Human" is just a label...

I agree. A mere label can't be a criterion for moral worth. What's relevent is the capacity to experience states of pain and pleasure.

"Pain" and "pleasure" are both labels.

Like many words, "pain" and "pleasure" refer to things in the universe. The things "pain" and "pleasure" refer to are morally relevant.

Consider a philosophical zombie (http://en.wikipedia.org...) or Dennett's zimbo (http://en.wikipedia.org...). These would satisfy almost anybody's definition of a human. But since they lack the ability to feel pain or pleasure, any harm you brought to one of these creatures would be morally irrelevant (assuming it wasn't some mad scientist's pet, or something). Do you disagree? If you agree, then you must agree with me that pain and pleasure are the only morally relevant features of a human.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 10:50:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 8:01:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 6:21:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Here is how to tell if it is human or not human:
All humans have 46 chromosomes. If the fetus has 46 chromosomes, it is human.
If it will most likely eventually be born as a baby, which is human, then it is human. In other words, an egg is not human because it will not become human. However, a fertilized egg will become a baby in nine months. Thus, it is human.

The first point is stronger than the second, but both are valid.

A headless body has 46 chromosomes, too. The arguments based on these types of things are fatuous.

Yes, but a headless body is dead. A fetus is alive. It has the qualities of life. Therefore, by aborting a fetus, you are killing a living human. How is this any different than murder?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 11:15:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 10:50:05 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 8:01:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 6:21:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Here is how to tell if it is human or not human:
All humans have 46 chromosomes. If the fetus has 46 chromosomes, it is human.
If it will most likely eventually be born as a baby, which is human, then it is human. In other words, an egg is not human because it will not become human. However, a fertilized egg will become a baby in nine months. Thus, it is human.

The first point is stronger than the second, but both are valid.

A headless body has 46 chromosomes, too. The arguments based on these types of things are fatuous.

Yes, but a headless body is dead. A fetus is alive. It has the qualities of life. Therefore, by aborting a fetus, you are killing a living human. How is this any different than murder?

Because it is not a person.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 11:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 11:15:13 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/26/2013 10:50:05 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 8:01:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 6:21:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Here is how to tell if it is human or not human:
All humans have 46 chromosomes. If the fetus has 46 chromosomes, it is human.
If it will most likely eventually be born as a baby, which is human, then it is human. In other words, an egg is not human because it will not become human. However, a fertilized egg will become a baby in nine months. Thus, it is human.

The first point is stronger than the second, but both are valid.

A headless body has 46 chromosomes, too. The arguments based on these types of things are fatuous.

Yes, but a headless body is dead. A fetus is alive. It has the qualities of life. Therefore, by aborting a fetus, you are killing a living human. How is this any different than murder?

Because it is not a person.

I just explained to you how a fetus is a person.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 11:17:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 11:16:15 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 11:15:13 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/26/2013 10:50:05 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 8:01:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 6:21:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Here is how to tell if it is human or not human:
All humans have 46 chromosomes. If the fetus has 46 chromosomes, it is human.
If it will most likely eventually be born as a baby, which is human, then it is human. In other words, an egg is not human because it will not become human. However, a fertilized egg will become a baby in nine months. Thus, it is human.

The first point is stronger than the second, but both are valid.

A headless body has 46 chromosomes, too. The arguments based on these types of things are fatuous.

Yes, but a headless body is dead. A fetus is alive. It has the qualities of life. Therefore, by aborting a fetus, you are killing a living human. How is this any different than murder?

Because it is not a person.

I just explained to you how a fetus is a person.

You explained how it is a human. Human and person are not mutually inclusive.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 11:21:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 11:17:39 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/26/2013 11:16:15 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 11:15:13 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/26/2013 10:50:05 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 8:01:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 6:21:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Here is how to tell if it is human or not human:
All humans have 46 chromosomes. If the fetus has 46 chromosomes, it is human.
If it will most likely eventually be born as a baby, which is human, then it is human. In other words, an egg is not human because it will not become human. However, a fertilized egg will become a baby in nine months. Thus, it is human.

The first point is stronger than the second, but both are valid.

A headless body has 46 chromosomes, too. The arguments based on these types of things are fatuous.

Yes, but a headless body is dead. A fetus is alive. It has the qualities of life. Therefore, by aborting a fetus, you are killing a living human. How is this any different than murder?

Because it is not a person.

I just explained to you how a fetus is a person.

You explained how it is a human. Human and person are not mutually inclusive.

Please tell me an example of a human that is not a person and an example of a person who is not a human. Why would these not be mutually inclusive?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 11:35:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 11:21:23 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 11:17:39 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/26/2013 11:16:15 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 11:15:13 PM, drhead wrote:
At 9/26/2013 10:50:05 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 8:01:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/26/2013 6:21:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Here is how to tell if it is human or not human:
All humans have 46 chromosomes. If the fetus has 46 chromosomes, it is human.
If it will most likely eventually be born as a baby, which is human, then it is human. In other words, an egg is not human because it will not become human. However, a fertilized egg will become a baby in nine months. Thus, it is human.

The first point is stronger than the second, but both are valid.

A headless body has 46 chromosomes, too. The arguments based on these types of things are fatuous.

Yes, but a headless body is dead. A fetus is alive. It has the qualities of life. Therefore, by aborting a fetus, you are killing a living human. How is this any different than murder?

Because it is not a person.

I just explained to you how a fetus is a person.

You explained how it is a human. Human and person are not mutually inclusive.

Please tell me an example of a human that is not a person and an example of a person who is not a human. Why would these not be mutually inclusive?

Personhood implies some presence of higher brain functions. For example, a braindead human could be said to not be a 'person' in that we can withhold life support without it being considered murder. Similarly, a fetus doesn't possess any of these higher brain functions until about 26 weeks. If you want a person that is not human, you'll have a hard time finding a real world example, since we are the only sentient race that we know of. However, any sentient being would be a person, whether it is human or some sort of extraterrestrial.

Plus, your definition of 'human' would include tumors, since tumors have a unique set of 46 chromosomes. In addition, your logic is extremely flawed:

P1. All humans have 46 chromosomes.
P2. Fetuses have 46 chromosomes.
C1. Fetuses are human.

It might not seem too bad at first, but I could add this and be just as right:

P3. Sable Antelopes have 46 chromosomes.
C2. Sable Antelopes are human.
P4. Killing a living human is murder.
C3. Killing a living Sable Antelope is murder.

Start by finding a better metric of human-ness than chromosome count, and get back to me.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2013 11:43:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 11:21:23 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Please tell me an example of a human that is not a person

- brain dead human beings.
- embryos
- sperm cells

and an example of a person who is not a human.

- my dog.
- E.T.
- H.A.L.
- Treebeard
- Jehovah

- Why would these not be mutually inclusive?

That's like asking why Kansans and Republicans aren't the same thing. There's considerable overlap, but the words aren't even nearly synonyms. To be a person is to have personality/identity/self/anticipation/fear/desire. To be a human is to be a discrete entity with human DNA.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2013 5:03:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 6:21:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Here is how to tell if it is human or not human:
All humans have 46 chromosomes. If the fetus has 46 chromosomes, it is human.

If it will most likely eventually be born as a baby, which is human, then it is human. In other words, an egg is not human because it will not become human. However, a fertilized egg will become a baby in nine months. Thus, it is human.

The first point is stronger than the second, but both are valid.

Nope, the first point is not valid.

Plenty of other animals have 46 chromosomes, if it has 46 chromosomes it could be an antelope, a rat, a bat, a squirrel, a shrew, a zebra, or several other animals.

Also, all humans don't have 46 chromosomes, including people with Down Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, and there's a normal healthy Chinese man with 44 chromosomes.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2013 5:09:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/26/2013 5:54:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 9/25/2013 1:01:51 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/25/2013 11:30:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/23/2013 11:01:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

"The morality of an abortion is contingent on the answer to the question: is it human?"

Actually, whether or not it is human has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. "Human" is just a label...

I agree. A mere label can't be a criterion for moral worth. What's relevent is the capacity to experience states of pain and pleasure.

"Pain" and "pleasure" are both labels.

The word label is just a label too, so what?.

I've never understood the point of saying something is just a label, but people say it all the time, what point is it supposed to make?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater