Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

personhood Pre-analysis

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 11:13:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This thread is a branch-off of Rob's thread.

The issue with abortion has traditionally been held to be when a fetus is designated as human and whether or not this has an effect on when abortion is to be done.

I took myself outside of that discussion because Rob had fundamental axioms that I disagreed with.

The point I want to explore is that personhood, humanity, whatever you call it, is purely subjective in the context it is being used in relation to abortion. Whether or not something is humane enough for it to be morally killed has no objective basis, it rests with whether or not the societal norm considers it humane enough.

My general argument is that before a fetus has a relationship with human society, it is fair game for abortion. The conduit by which this fetus is linked to society, is the mother. If the mother does not want the fetus, then she has the right to terminate, just as long as this decision is made before the fetus can survive outside the womb with medical technology.

Medical technology gives us the ability to save the life and thus, a moral obligation. This also serves as the connect, because the fetus is then dependent on that ability of ours to sustain its existence.

Thoughts?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 11:22:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've always said that consciousness determined whether or not a fetus was a person. When one becomes conscious -- which usually occurs in the 3rd trimester, I believe -- they have the ability to think, feel, etc. I'm opposed to late term abortion (especially partial birth abortion) because at that point, there's really no denying that the fetus is a person. In that case, then how is killing a person not murder? Yes, the fetus still relies on the mother; however, that is no different than a baby during infancy which relies on someone to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc. Granted I agree with Kleptin's assessment about society, but again, I don't see how one can reconcile killing a person and not consider it murder. A "potential" person is one thing, but a an unborn person is still a person in my opinion.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 11:30:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 11:13:19 AM, Kleptin wrote:
The point I want to explore is that personhood, humanity, whatever you call it, is purely subjective in the context it is being used in relation to abortion. Whether or not something is humane enough for it to be morally killed has no objective basis, it rests with whether or not the societal norm considers it humane enough.

It is true that personhood, as it is being used to mean that the fetus should have the rights of any other person, is an entirely subjective opinion as is everything else that involves morality.

However, the societal norms are completely irrelevant to whether a fetus should be considered a person or not. Even if everyone else thought that a fetus should count as a person that does not necessarily make it so. Argumentum ad populum.

My general argument is that before a fetus has a relationship with human society, it is fair game for abortion. The conduit by which this fetus is linked to society, is the mother. If the mother does not want the fetus, then she has the right to terminate, just as long as this decision is made before the fetus can survive outside the womb with medical technology.

Is this objectively true or would I be just as correct as you if I argued differently?

Medical technology gives us the ability to save the life and thus, a moral obligation.

Can you objectively prove this moral obligation to save lives.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 12:29:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 11:13:19 AM, Kleptin wrote:
The point I want to explore is that personhood, humanity, whatever you call it, is purely subjective in the context it is being used in relation to abortion. Whether or not something is humane enough for it to be morally killed has no objective basis, it rests with whether or not the societal norm considers it humane enough.


Is this not a bit of begging the question? Aren't you just assuming that there is no objective basis and then arguing since there's no objective basis what is considered "humane enough for it to be morally killed" is determined by society?

My general argument is that before a fetus has a relationship with human society, it is fair game for abortion. The conduit by which this fetus is linked to society, is the mother. If the mother does not want the fetus, then she has the right to terminate, just as long as this decision is made before the fetus can survive outside the womb with medical technology.


So, what you're saying is once medical technology advances to the point where it is possible to take care of the fetus from when it first starts developing (no reason to think that won't happen eventually) that then the mother has no right to terminate the fetus even if she doesn't want it?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 2:54:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would agree that consciousness is the threshhold which must not be crossed. Pre-consciousness is merely a very complicated organic machine, but a post-conscious human is a real person. This is when a fetus becomes a person.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:41:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 11:30:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Argumentum ad populum.

Nothing against your post, but I just wanted to bring this to light as I expected this response. It is a very important point and deserves special attention.

This is an invalid application of the logical fallacy. The logical fallacy of Ad Populum is in reference to the truth value of a proposition based on what the majority of people think. The reason this is designated as a fallacy is that it does not yield a logical conclusion exclusive to objective truth. 1 + 1 would be 2 regardless of whether or not the majority decides that it is 17.

What I am arguing is that there is no objective truth to be found.

See the differences between the two:

A.
The majority of people say abortion is moral
Therefore, abortion is moral.

The hidden premise is that what the majority says, dictates truth.

B.
The majority of people say abortion is moral
Morality is defined by the majority of people
Therefore, abortion is moral

The premise is filled. In place of where the traditional fallacy is, there is a substituted premise. I will be happy to argue that morality is, in fact, defined by what the majority of people believe and not an objective truth.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 3:56:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 12:29:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Is this not a bit of begging the question? Aren't you just assuming that there is no objective basis and then arguing since there's no objective basis what is considered "humane enough for it to be morally killed" is determined by society?

I apologize. I just noted this. No, this is not begging the question because the two are different. I am concluding that abortion is moral under circumstances XYZ given that there is no objective basis.

I was asking people to respond to the premise, not the conclusion, as my premise would be the controversial thing. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

My general argument is that before a fetus has a relationship with human society, it is fair game for abortion. The conduit by which this fetus is linked to society, is the mother. If the mother does not want the fetus, then she has the right to terminate, just as long as this decision is made before the fetus can survive outside the womb with medical technology.

So, what you're saying is once medical technology advances to the point where it is possible to take care of the fetus from when it first starts developing (no reason to think that won't happen eventually) that then the mother has no right to terminate the fetus even if she doesn't want it?

Yes and no. It depends on what society wants. The mother's goal should not be to terminate the fetus, but to hold on to her freedom. When the fetus develops to the point where medical technology can care for it, and the mother decides that she does not want the fetus, then the decision as to what is done with the fetus goes to society.

As of right now, society will want to keep the child and have it grow. If medical technology progresses to the point where they can basically grow a fetus right from conception, without overly invasive procedure, then that society might choose not to keep the fetus at all. In fact, it may even waive the responsibility and allow the mother to terminate it as she wishes.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 5:50:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 3:41:57 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 12/14/2009 11:30:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
Argumentum ad populum.

Nothing against your post, but I just wanted to bring this to light as I expected this response. It is a very important point and deserves special attention.

This is an invalid application of the logical fallacy. The logical fallacy of Ad Populum is in reference to the truth value of a proposition based on what the majority of people think. The reason this is designated as a fallacy is that it does not yield a logical conclusion exclusive to objective truth. 1 + 1 would be 2 regardless of whether or not the majority decides that it is 17.

What I am arguing is that there is no objective truth to be found.

See the differences between the two:

A.
The majority of people say abortion is moral
Therefore, abortion is moral.

The hidden premise is that what the majority says, dictates truth.

B.
The majority of people say abortion is moral
Morality is defined by the majority of people
Therefore, abortion is moral

The premise is filled. In place of where the traditional fallacy is, there is a substituted premise. I will be happy to argue that morality is, in fact, defined by what the majority of people believe and not an objective truth.

Ah, I misunderstood your position.

If you could post the definition you are using for morality it would be greatly appreciated.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2009 6:10:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 5:50:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
If you could post the definition you are using for morality it would be greatly appreciated.

That's hard. I don't think that morality is reflected by an objective reality. I would say that it is a system by which people judge whether actions are positive or negative. In what sense they define positive and negative is up in the air.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2009 12:41:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Kleptin, you will need to address my concerns about technology advancing and pushing back the date to which a fetus can be supported artificially. Your argument seems to lose cohesion as technology continues to progress.

I would say that the "consciousness" threshold is pretty subjective. Consciousness is a result of a developed mind - let's not put the cart before the horse. A car is a vehicle because it has an engine that propels it, not because cars go fast. I would say that some infants, even after birth, would not qualify a strict-enough version of conscious, given most of their actions are highly instinctual and it's hard to demonstrate that they have much thought going on inside their heads. There is no one that can stand in authority and say that "consciousness starts here," because no one has control of their faculties at that point in development and nothing really is working right quite yet. What do you remember about being 1 years old? If someone 90 years old can remember what they did at 10 years old just fine, but someone 5, 10, or more years old cannot remember what they did at 1 years old, then cannot we assume that our brains really aren't working to that high of a capacity and the whole notion of consciousness becomes a subjective blurr? Why else can't we remember what we did before that crucial point between 2-4 years old?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2009 12:48:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is true that personhood, as it is being used to mean that the fetus should have the rights of any other person, is an entirely subjective opinion as is everything else that involves morality.

You know, some day this question may get harder and you guys aren't going to be able to sit in your comfortable ideologies and just pass everything off as subjective. No field is advancing faster than computer technology, and genetics is coming a long way as well. When these two fields meet, we are going to be seeing some very interesting things and I think one of them is going to be artificial intelligence. I'm not so convinced about spaceships, flying cars, or time travel, but I am convinced that cybernetics/AI is going to take off and we are going to need some pretty clear answers about what rights should be given and to whom. I started the other thread to awaken everyone to the fact that we need some logical criteria to judge personhood which is not based on humanity.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:57:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/15/2009 12:41:59 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Kleptin, you will need to address my concerns about technology advancing and pushing back the date to which a fetus can be supported artificially. Your argument seems to lose cohesion as technology continues to progress.

Your concerns are not legitimate. The only reason why there seems to be a problem with the improvement of technology is that it you have this assumption that a person is objectively a person at a certain point in time, whereas I define personhood subjectively. In fact, this was the very reason why I did not respond any further on the other thread, because you didn't seem to be able to grasp the fact that we disagreed on whether or *not* there was a fundamental problem, not on what the problem was.

I would say that the "consciousness" threshold is pretty subjective. Consciousness is a result of a developed mind - let's not put the cart before the horse. A car is a vehicle because it has an engine that propels it, not because cars go fast. I would say that some infants, even after birth, would not qualify a strict-enough version of conscious, given most of their actions are highly instinctual and it's hard to demonstrate that they have much thought going on inside their heads. There is no one that can stand in authority and say that "consciousness starts here," because no one has control of their faculties at that point in development and nothing really is working right quite yet. What do you remember about being 1 years old? If someone 90 years old can remember what they did at 10 years old just fine, but someone 5, 10, or more years old cannot remember what they did at 1 years old, then cannot we assume that our brains really aren't working to that high of a capacity and the whole notion of consciousness becomes a subjective blurr? Why else can't we remember what we did before that crucial point between 2-4 years old?

Agreed with the above. If consciousness were the only modifier, we could theoretically kill anyone who is knocked unconscious, in a coma, or at specific levels of insanity, with perfect moral judgement. Furthermore, The brain doesn't stop growing until the age of six and full usage doesn't appear until adolescence. Children have difficulty recognizing themselves in mirrors until the ages of 2 or 3. Recognition of self is a very important part of consciousness.

Proponents of this should start by defining consciousness in an objective manner.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 8:03:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/15/2009 12:48:54 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
You know, some day this question may get harder and you guys aren't going to be able to sit in your comfortable ideologies and just pass everything off as subjective. No field is advancing faster than computer technology, and genetics is coming a long way as well. When these two fields meet, we are going to be seeing some very interesting things and I think one of them is going to be artificial intelligence. I'm not so convinced about spaceships, flying cars, or time travel, but I am convinced that cybernetics/AI is going to take off and we are going to need some pretty clear answers about what rights should be given and to whom. I started the other thread to awaken everyone to the fact that we need some logical criteria to judge personhood which is not based on humanity.

Artificial intelligence already exists, but sentience does not and will not. There is no practical use for sentient mechanical beings in a global population that has increasing rates of unemployment. Not any time in the near future, not even by the time I die. Science fiction novels about technology gone wrong have moderated our attempts to do things which may have dire consequences.

Personhood definitely has a social component. Dogs view humans as part of their pack, and some humans view their pets as part of the family. Falsely objectifying something that has no true objective basis is unnecessary. The fact that you want logical criteria for something does not necessarily mean that there is any.

If you're going to accuse people of being too idealistic, then perhaps you should first provide a proof that humanity or personhood does have a measure of objectivity before asking us to provide that measure of objectivity for you.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 2:04:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Artificial intelligence already exists,

But not artificial people

but sentience does not and will not.

That's a philisophical question we could argue for years, but there is no way you can demonstrate your point in this matter so there is no point in making it. I say it can, you say it can't...

There is no practical use for sentient mechanical beings in a global population that has increasing rates of unemployment. Not any time in the near future, not even by the time I die.

I'm not sure where you are going with this one... I couldn't have imagined you bringing up unemployment rates in this discussion... At any rate, I don't think that an engineer, thinking about designing an immensely sophisticated artificial person, is going to be checking unemployment rates and trying to make sure the AI gets a job so it doesn't clutter up the welfare system. Actually, that's a pretty interesting concept...

Science fiction novels about technology gone wrong have moderated our attempts to do things which may have dire consequences.

I don't believe that is correct. I don't care how many Terminators, Independence Days, or Aliens movies are made, we are going to keep progressing until we are the forcibly stopped. When we ignited the first atomic bomb, we weren't sure if the reaction would stop or destroy the entire planet, but we threw that switch and we will continue to throw that switch because we are interrogative beings who will never stop toying with nature.

Personhood definitely has a social component. Dogs view humans as part of their pack, and some humans view their pets as part of the family. Falsely objectifying something that has no true objective basis is unnecessary. The fact that you want logical criteria for something does not necessarily mean that there is any.

Dogs are loved like people but they are not loved as people (...). I will agree that it would be difficult to make an exact measurement of the point where a fetus becomes a person, because of the complex way in which the brain grows, but that doesn't mean that the whole concept is subjective. It is not subjective that a dog is not a person, regardless how much a little girl loves her puppy.

If you're going to accuse people of being too idealistic, then perhaps you should first provide a proof that humanity or personhood does have a measure of objectivity before asking us to provide that measure of objectivity for you.

So you are saying that it is not objective because someone could consider a dog a person?

Again, you have failed to explain your problem with technology being able to sustain a fetus artificially at an earlier and earlier date as science progresses. As science progresses, do younger and younger fetuses suddenly become people?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 4:20:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/14/2009 11:22:36 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I've always said that consciousness determined whether or not a fetus was a person. When one becomes conscious -- which usually occurs in the 3rd trimester, I believe -- they have the ability to think, feel, etc. I'm opposed to late term abortion (especially partial birth abortion) because at that point, there's really no denying that the fetus is a person. In that case, then how is killing a person not murder? Yes, the fetus still relies on the mother; however, that is no different than a baby during infancy which relies on someone to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc.
And? No one should be obligated to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 4:28:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 2:04:18 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
But not artificial people

How could you possibly make this statement when the entire topic is about trying to find out what makes a person a person XD?

but sentience does not and will not.

That's a philisophical question we could argue for years, but there is no way you can demonstrate your point in this matter so there is no point in making it. I say it can, you say it can't...

I never said it can't. I said that artificial sentience does not exist and will not exist. I never said that it couldn't.

There is no practical use for sentient mechanical beings in a global population that has increasing rates of unemployment. Not any time in the near future, not even by the time I die.

I'm not sure where you are going with this one... I couldn't have imagined you bringing up unemployment rates in this discussion... At any rate, I don't think that an engineer, thinking about designing an immensely sophisticated artificial person, is going to be checking unemployment rates and trying to make sure the AI gets a job so it doesn't clutter up the welfare system. Actually, that's a pretty interesting concept...

If people set out to invent something, they are usually being paid to do so, and that thing would have some use towards society. Sentient machines would not feasibly be funded for and would should anyone start trying to build one, there

I don't believe that is correct. I don't care how many Terminators, Independence Days, or Aliens movies are made, we are going to keep progressing until we are the forcibly stopped. When we ignited the first atomic bomb, we weren't sure if the reaction would stop or destroy the entire planet, but we threw that switch and we will continue to throw that switch because we are interrogative beings who will never stop toying with nature.

You're talking about the country that's decades behind on stem cell research in comparison with other countries because of the "ethics".

Dogs are loved like people but they are not loved as people (...). I will agree that it would be difficult to make an exact measurement of the point where a fetus becomes a person, because of the complex way in which the brain grows, but that doesn't mean that the whole concept is subjective. It is not subjective that a dog is not a person, regardless how much a little girl loves her puppy.

That's not my main argument. My main argument is that morality in and of itself has no objective component and by extension, personhood does not either.

So you are saying that it is not objective because someone could consider a dog a person?

I'm saying that it is not objective because people have killed other people with justification, and are killing other people with justification, and people are aborting fetuses without moral repercussion. Everyone is so caught up wondering whether or not it is immoral when the real question is why it matters, since it has been done for so long.

Again, you have failed to explain your problem with technology being able to sustain a fetus artificially at an earlier and earlier date as science progresses. As science progresses, do younger and younger fetuses suddenly become people?

Personhood =/= state of being. It has to do with how society views you. There is nothing intrinsic about a person that makes him or her a person in a way relevant to the abortion discussion. I'm sick of repeating the same point over and over, I have not failed to explain *anything*, you just keep failing to understand why THERE IS NO PROBLEM. Your mind is so set into this notion that there are physical, objective determinants for personhood that you can't grasp the notion that I disagree with you on that foundation.

Take one step back from your assumptions, and then we can continue discussion.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2009 12:15:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 4:20:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/14/2009 11:22:36 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I've always said that consciousness determined whether or not a fetus was a person. When one becomes conscious -- which usually occurs in the 3rd trimester, I believe -- they have the ability to think, feel, etc. I'm opposed to late term abortion (especially partial birth abortion) because at that point, there's really no denying that the fetus is a person. In that case, then how is killing a person not murder? Yes, the fetus still relies on the mother; however, that is no different than a baby during infancy which relies on someone to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc.
And? No one should be obligated to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc.

I disagree. The infant did not ask to be born, and once it becomes a person, its life becomes a value and thus it is important for society to protect one's right to their own life. Since a baby cannot feasibly take care of themselves, they don't have the opportunity to protect their own life meaning to blatantly ignore their needs is infringing upon their right to life.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2009 12:21:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/15/2009 12:41:59 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Kleptin, you will need to address my concerns about technology advancing and pushing back the date to which a fetus can be supported artificially. Your argument seems to lose cohesion as technology continues to progress.

I would say that the "consciousness" threshold is pretty subjective. Consciousness is a result of a developed mind - let's not put the cart before the horse. A car is a vehicle because it has an engine that propels it, not because cars go fast.

Even if you use that car analogy, then the baby would become a person when it has a mind (i.e. brain activity which stimulates consciousness) -- It still doesn't happen for about 16-20 weeks.

I would say that some infants, even after birth, would not qualify a strict-enough version of conscious, given most of their actions are highly instinctual and it's hard to demonstrate that they have much thought going on inside their heads.

Being conscious doesn't necessarily mean that you can make independent thoughts. It means you have a response to stimuli amongst other factors. A baby can feel pain and have experiences inside the womb let alone outside of it.

There is no one that can stand in authority and say that "consciousness starts here," because no one has control of their faculties at that point in development and nothing really is working right quite yet. What do you remember about being 1 years old? If someone 90 years old can remember what they did at 10 years old just fine, but someone 5, 10, or more years old cannot remember what they did at 1 years old, then cannot we assume that our brains really aren't working to that high of a capacity and the whole notion of consciousness becomes a subjective blurr? Why else can't we remember what we did before that crucial point between 2-4 years old?

I really don't understand the point of this or what memories have to do with anything. You can determine when someone's conscious by looking at their brain activity, so yes, you CAN note when someone is or isn't conscious. It's about the development of the mind and brain waves in general. Life starts at conception - that's obvious. But us humans don't really have a high regard for life, do we? We kill trees. We waste ejaculated sperm. We kill animals. It's a PERSON'S life that's important. I believe that one has to be able to have experiences (not necessarily understand those experiences) in order to be considered a living person. Before one has a working mind, they're not experiencing anything. Also, memories really have nothing to do with this...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2009 12:22:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/21/2009 12:15:03 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/16/2009 4:20:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/14/2009 11:22:36 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I've always said that consciousness determined whether or not a fetus was a person. When one becomes conscious -- which usually occurs in the 3rd trimester, I believe -- they have the ability to think, feel, etc. I'm opposed to late term abortion (especially partial birth abortion) because at that point, there's really no denying that the fetus is a person. In that case, then how is killing a person not murder? Yes, the fetus still relies on the mother; however, that is no different than a baby during infancy which relies on someone to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc.
And? No one should be obligated to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc.

I disagree. The infant did not ask to be born, and once it becomes a person, its life becomes a value and thus it is important for society to protect one's right to their own life. Since a baby cannot feasibly take care of themselves, they don't have the opportunity to protect their own life meaning to blatantly ignore their needs is infringing upon their right to life.

Lol... I just read that and already know what your response will be, so don't even bother posting it, because I don't have a good answer (yet).
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2009 1:45:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/21/2009 12:15:03 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/16/2009 4:20:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/14/2009 11:22:36 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I've always said that consciousness determined whether or not a fetus was a person. When one becomes conscious -- which usually occurs in the 3rd trimester, I believe -- they have the ability to think, feel, etc. I'm opposed to late term abortion (especially partial birth abortion) because at that point, there's really no denying that the fetus is a person. In that case, then how is killing a person not murder? Yes, the fetus still relies on the mother; however, that is no different than a baby during infancy which relies on someone to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc.
And? No one should be obligated to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc.

I disagree. The infant did not ask to be born
And? If they wish to be unborn it's as easy as not doing anything.

and once it becomes a person, its life becomes a value and thus it is important for society to protect one's right to their own life. Since a baby cannot feasibly take care of themselves
"right to life" entails nothing but that no one will interfere with any taking care of oneself that happens to take place. No one, and no many, including "society," can rightfully be enslaved, in the name of some misconception of the meaning of "right to life" or otherwise.

they don't have the opportunity to protect their own life meaning to blatantly ignore their needs is infringing upon their right to life.
To ignore and never interact with someone is a guaranteed way not to interfere with any right they have.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2009 1:45:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/21/2009 12:22:40 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/21/2009 12:15:03 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 12/16/2009 4:20:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/14/2009 11:22:36 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I've always said that consciousness determined whether or not a fetus was a person. When one becomes conscious -- which usually occurs in the 3rd trimester, I believe -- they have the ability to think, feel, etc. I'm opposed to late term abortion (especially partial birth abortion) because at that point, there's really no denying that the fetus is a person. In that case, then how is killing a person not murder? Yes, the fetus still relies on the mother; however, that is no different than a baby during infancy which relies on someone to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc.
And? No one should be obligated to take care of it, protect it, feed it, etc.

I disagree. The infant did not ask to be born, and once it becomes a person, its life becomes a value and thus it is important for society to protect one's right to their own life. Since a baby cannot feasibly take care of themselves, they don't have the opportunity to protect their own life meaning to blatantly ignore their needs is infringing upon their right to life.

Lol... I just read that and already know what your response will be, so don't even bother posting it, because I don't have a good answer (yet).

Lol, sorry I didn't notice :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2009 7:06:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lwerd, my point about memories was that since we cannot establish long-term memories when we are very young, it stands to reason that there is a certain part of our consciousness that hasn't developed yet.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 1:30:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That's not my main argument. My main argument is that morality in and of itself has no objective component and by extension, personhood does not either.

Morality must be objective. How is it subjective that, if I killed you for no reason, it wouldn't be wrong? If morality is subjective, then right and wrong are just social constructions... I cannot accept this.

So you are saying that it is not objective because someone could consider a dog a person?

I'm saying that it is not objective because people have killed other people with justification, and are killing other people with justification,

Your assuming that absolute morality dictates that all killing is wrong. I would say it doesn't.

and people are aborting fetuses without moral repercussion. Everyone is so caught up wondering whether or not it is immoral when the real question is why it matters, since it has been done for so long.

I have no quarrels with this statement.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 10:46:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 1:30:08 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Morality must be objective. How is it subjective that, if I killed you for no reason, it wouldn't be wrong? If morality is subjective, then right and wrong are just social constructions... I cannot accept this.

Thank you for managing to finally step outside the box. Yes, this is the heart of the issue as I see it. Whether or not you can accept something has nothing to do with whether or not it is the truth. Your argument as of now is essentially "Morality must be objective because if it is subjective, it makes me uncomfortable". You're going to have to do a little better than that.

Your assuming that absolute morality dictates that all killing is wrong. I would say it doesn't.

I made no such assumption. My point is that between moral systems, there exist different interpretations of whether an act is or is not moral, even given the same circumstances. My explanation for morality covers this, your explanation (or rather, your unjustified assumption) does not.

I have no quarrels with this statement.

Good, because my conclusion is that it doesn't matter one iota. Morality is really no different from taste in fashion or music. Both have very vague roots in biology and from there, stem into a varied range amongst members of a society. The majority around the average is dictated as the tolerable norm and the tails are isolated or punished. The tolerable norm changes when social factors shift a significant portion of that society.

This is why when few people demonstrate great deviations from the norm, they are incarcerated or institutionalized, an why the same system also allows for social/moral progression only when small steps are made by a great majority. It also explains why some moral rules are seen almost universally while great differences are seen between cultures.

My explanation covers *everything*. Can you say the same for a system under objective morality?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
patsox834
Posts: 406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2009 2:17:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 1:30:08 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
That's not my main argument. My main argument is that morality in and of itself has no objective component and by extension, personhood does not either.

Morality must be objective. How is it subjective that, if I killed you for no reason, it wouldn't be wrong? If morality is subjective, then right and wrong are just social constructions... I cannot accept this.

This is an obvious case of an argument from personal incredulity. Simply because you can't accept it doesn't at all mean it isn't the case.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2009 6:47:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My explanation covers *everything*. Can you say the same for a system under objective morality?

I too am drawn to explanations that "explain everytihng" simply. Simplicity has an elegance, as well as a utility, that is very seductive (as well as being a cornerstone of a good scientific theory). My concept of morality is simple as well. If one acts out of intentions based on the seven cardinal vices (wrath, pride, etc.) then one is behaving immorally. If one acts out of the primary virtues (fortitude, justice, temperance, or prudence) then one is acting morally. I believe the formal name for this is rule deontology.

I'm sure you consider this explanation laughably subjective, but we can debate it if necessary. I'd like to point out 2 things before we do, however. First, it doesn't matter that there are differing ideas about morality; morality isn't up for a vote. Second, your hypothesis has a major problem: aren't some acts inherently immoral and moral? For instance, locking someone up and torturing them is hardly subjective, morally speaking. Likewise, an anonymous charitable donation is inherently moral. The equation gets more complex as you move from the margins, just like a mathematical construct of a system of particles, with well-defined momentums and masses, gets complex as you add more particles to the system. This complexity, however, does not mean that the mathematics behind the motions of the particles are subjective. The weather, for instance, is pure chaos theory, yet it is governed by simple physics and chemistry that can be reproduced on a small scale with perfect accuracy. The epitome of objectiveness, therefore, can lead to seemingly subjective results simply because of complexity - our inability to apprehend all aspects of the system simultaneously. Doing the "right" thing can be broken down into forces of intention, which can be isolated and identified objectively.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2009 6:54:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Morality must be objective. How is it subjective that, if I killed you for no reason, it wouldn't be wrong? If morality is subjective, then right and wrong are just social constructions... I cannot accept this.

This is an obvious case of an argument from personal incredulity. Simply because you can't accept it doesn't at all mean it isn't the case.

So you are saying that the perceived immorality of torture and murder is simply an emotional reaction coming from within myself, and is actually perfectly alright? If morality is subjective, then murder and torture are not truly immoral, they are only perceived that way.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2009 9:10:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/26/2009 6:47:42 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I too am drawn to explanations that "explain everytihng" simply. Simplicity has an elegance, as well as a utility, that is very seductive (as well as being a cornerstone of a good scientific theory). My concept of morality is simple as well. If one acts out of intentions based on the seven cardinal vices (wrath, pride, etc.) then one is behaving immorally. If one acts out of the primary virtues (fortitude, justice, temperance, or prudence) then one is acting morally. I believe the formal name for this is rule deontology.

And this method fails simply due to the fact that the vices and virtues are composed of terms that are inherently biased. For example, you essentially state that if an action is based on justice, then it is moral. A very loud "duh" echoes in my mind. Temperance is keeping moderation and prudence is soundness and practicality. All of these things are subjective and thus, you have not made progress on your position one bit.

I'm sure you consider this explanation laughably subjective, but we can debate it if necessary. I'd like to point out 2 things before we do, however. First, it doesn't matter that there are differing ideas about morality; morality isn't up for a vote.

How exactly do you know this? The term "morality" reflects what we see represented in day to day life. If you're asserting that what we see is not representative of the "true morality", guess whose job it is to prove that there is a difference between the visible morality we see in society and this nebulous "true morality"?

Second, your hypothesis has a major problem: aren't some acts inherently immoral and moral? For instance, locking someone up and torturing them is hardly subjective, morally speaking. Likewise, an anonymous charitable donation is inherently moral.

No, no acts are inherently immoral or moral. Circumstances just modify the act and make it more readily acceptable as moral or immoral in more situations and more social circles. The acts that seem to be the most "universal" are ones that are deeper ingrained into human biology. This is why something like the killing of beneficial members of one's own society (murder) is almost universally immoral. It's because all humans are members of a species that would be harmed by eliminating members of its gene pool. However, this is no indication that any act is INHERENTLY moral or immoral. Circumstances can always be provided to shift that ethical designation.

The equation gets more complex as you move from the margins, just like a mathematical construct of a system of particles, with well-defined momentums and masses, gets complex as you add more particles to the system. This complexity, however, does not mean that the mathematics behind the motions of the particles are subjective. The weather, for instance, is pure chaos theory, yet it is governed by simple physics and chemistry that can be reproduced on a small scale with perfect accuracy. The epitome of objectiveness, therefore, can lead to seemingly subjective results simply because of complexity - our inability to apprehend all aspects of the system simultaneously. Doing the "right" thing can be broken down into forces of intention, which can be isolated and identified objectively.

This bears a striking resemblance to the framework for Ragnar Rahl's argument on morality. What you've said up there doesn't follow through to your last statement. The subjectivity of morality does not stem from unpredictability or uncertainty or ignorance, but from practicality and common sense. As of right now, your argument stands as this:

1. There is some objective RIGHT out there
2. We just haven't found it yet
3. The fact that we have no evidence for it doesn't disprove its existence.

You know what other type of argument follows the same weak structure?

1. God is out there
2. We just haven't found him yet.
3. The fact that we have no evidence for him doesn't disprove his existence.

Prove to me that it is possible for one to "break down" the components of an objectively "right" action in a predictable fashion and your argument will have some weight. As of right now, you have really made no argument. The fact that you throw the word "objectivity" here and there and make analogies to mathematics and physics is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Use an analogy. Someone is stealing a loaf of bread, for example.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2009 9:11:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/26/2009 6:54:13 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
So you are saying that the perceived immorality of torture and murder is simply an emotional reaction coming from within myself, and is actually perfectly alright? If morality is subjective, then murder and torture are not truly immoral, they are only perceived that way.

Exactly. We are but bags of chemicals. Murder and torture are nothing more but bags of chemicals changing the chemical nature of another bag of chemicals. Don't forget that. From there on up, subjective morality makes quite a bit of sense.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2009 9:21:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/26/2009 9:11:55 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Exactly. We are but bags of chemicals. Murder and torture are nothing more but bags of chemicals changing the chemical nature of another bag of chemicals. Don't forget that. From there on up, subjective morality makes quite a bit of sense.

'Tis true. The only thing anywhere near what you could call a 'structure' for morality is our own instincts inherent to the species - like, murdering your children is generally not good for continued genetic survival. Still susceptible to your subjective view, though - just ask Abraham.