personhood

[RCSaunders]

what is a person?

Which person. They're all different.

Or, are you asking what the word, "person," means?

In that case, a person is an individual human being.

"One person," means, "one human being."

[Immanuel Can]

...if the only way out of the problem is to have everyone believe the same religious thing as you do, then there isn't a solution.

It depends.

If there is a God, then there IS a right answer. Some people may choose to believe in personhood, then, and they are right. Some people will no doubt refuse to believe in personhood...but they'll be wrong, if there is a God.

And really, there's nothing at all unusual or special about saying that. The same could be said of any fact at all...empirical, scientific, whatever: those who believe it's true are right, and the rest are wrong. The earth is flat, or the earth is round. Belief has nothing to do with the answer. Either way, the fact remains the fact.

And personhood, then, if it exists at all, exists whether or not some group of people chooses to believe in it.

To your other point, if God exists, (let's just say this in theory, without committing you to believing it), then the value of personhood isn't merely a human value; it's an intrinsic feature of the Creation as designed by God. In other words, it's a fact too, because there are such things as moral facts, then. The "is-ought" critique of Hume is overcome, because the "is"-ness of a thing, it's ontological reality, is that it was created for a divinely-appointed role, and has a value grounded in the purposes of the Creator.

[FlashDangerpants]

...if the only way out of the problem is to have everyone believe the same religious thing as you do, then there isn't a solution.

It depends.

If there is a God, then there IS a right answer. Some people may choose to believe in personhood, then, and they are right. Some people will no doubt refuse to believe in personhood...but they'll be wrong, if there is a God.

And really, there's nothing at all unusual or special about saying that. The same could be said of any fact at all...empirical, scientific, whatever: those who believe it's true are right, and the rest are wrong. The earth is flat, or the earth is round. Belief has nothing to do with the answer. Either way, the fact remains the fact.

And personhood, then, if it exists at all, exists whether or not some group of people chooses to believe in it.

To your other point, if God exists, (let's just say this in theory, without committing you to believing it), then the value of personhood isn't merely a human value; it's an intrinsic feature of the Creation as designed by God. In other words, it's a fact too, because there are such things as moral facts, then. The "is-ought" critique of Hume is overcome, because the "is"-ness of a thing, it's ontological reality, is that it was created for a divinely-appointed role, and has a value grounded in the purposes of the Creator.

For once we agree. An infallible and unquestionable divine force would make moral realism work, and it would make categorical essentialism work also. Other supernatual objects such as souls would make personhood easy to define, and divine blessing given or withheld would sort out all controversy about gay marriage one way or the other.

Religion is such a convenient way of getting clarity in all things. That's why believers have such an easy time agreeing on everything.

[uwot]

Religion is such a convenient way of getting clarity in all things. That's why believers have such an easy time agreeing on everything.

Good luck with that one. Think yer might have to aim a bit lower.

[commonsense]

I’m starting to get just a little lost in the thread lately...

Is there anyone here who is implying or claiming that there cannot be a secular personhood? Or would you agree that there cannot be personhood unless God exists.

If so, though it may be repetition, please tell me why you think so.

Not looking for a fight. Just want to be schooled.

[commonsense]

Would it be fair to say that all it takes to be recognized as a person is to have a human form and consciousness?

Certainly these would be the minimum attributes.

There then must be a consensus of existing persons to accept one as a person.

And importantly, a soul is also a necessary attribute for those existing persons who believe in souls to accept one’s personhood.

[Immanuel Can]

For once we agree. An infallible and unquestionable divine force would make moral realism work, and it would make categorical essentialism work also.

Hey, how about that? Who'd a thunk it was possible?

Other supernatual objects such as souls would make personhood easy to define, and divine blessing given or withheld would sort out all controversy about gay marriage one way or the other.

Among other issues, of course. But by far the most important is this: we would have reason to know there was an intrinsic value to human beings.

Religion is such a convenient way of getting clarity in all things.

Convenient? Hardly. It implies a lot of rather uncomfortable truths, such as that human beings are not, contrary to all their wishes, simply their own possessions for disposal as they see fit; and neither is anyone else. Moreover, it implies accountability for what one does with other persons. That's much less "convenient" than the alternative, to be sure.

But efficacious, yes. And clarity, where it actually points to truth, is actually a very great virtue.

That's why believers have such an easy time agreeing on everything.

Heh. You haven't spent any time in any religious groups if you imagine that. Human beings are instinctively-selfish creatures. It takes rather a lot to overcome that and to form a coherent community.

The upshot is only this: if there's meaning to "personhood," it will have to be grounded a transcendent value. But Materialism, Physicalism, Atheism and so on, all deny the very possibility of the transcendent. It's not hard to understand, therefore, why they have such an impossible time trying to account for their God-given intuition that human beings are actually intrinsically valuable. There isn't actually a rationale within their assumptions about what can exist that allows their intuition to make any sense.

[Immanuel Can]

Is there anyone here who is implying or claiming that there cannot be a secular personhood?

Sort of. I would claim that personhood still exists, but secular persons have can find no credible rationale for why or how it exists.

Or would you agree that there cannot be personhood unless God exists.

Well, let's try to make sense of that.

Let's start with the premise that God does not exist. Furthermore, we should then have to say something like that human beings are accidental products of an inherently purposeless universe. We just happen to be here, but there's no "why" to it. We just got lucky.

If that's the case, what sort of line of reasoning would obligate anyone to believe any person had any special value? Why would the lucky debris of a purposeless universe have intrinsic value? Why would we owe such mere cosmic detritus anything? But if it offends our sensibilities to hear human beings, or persons, characterized as mere cosmic detritus, we might want to ask ourselves why it does, and whether our being offended comes with justification.

Not looking for a fight. Just want to be schooled.

Fair enough.

Not picking one, either. Just trying to think this process through together. I don't want to deny any secular person the right to believe what he wishes to believe, even if I think it's incorrect. Conscience is a primary, sacred value in its own way. But sometimes, thinking through why we suppose what we suppose can be useful in deciding whether or not our supposings make any sense, in light of other things we believe.

There may not be a justification for belief in personhood within secularism. That's not to say nobody has the right to be secular.

[henry quirk]

Some people are obviously more conformist and less free-thinking than others. Some, being of lower intelligence, imagination or bodily ability, are able to use their agency less than those with more of those qualities.

it seems to me there's a difference between free will and will power

free will fundamentally means to be a cause instead of an event, but there's nuthin' about free will guaranteeing a man will be an effective cause or a wise cause or a strong cause...right choices, strong choices, deliberate choices, those come from, among other things, a healthy will power (a feature that seems to vary in strength from person to person)


But the problems continue. Animals do seem to make choices. Human beings in comas or vegetative states seem to make none. And yet we want to say that the person in a vegetative state is a person, and the animal is not. How do we justify that, if the mere having of a will is our index?

I have no doubt some non-human life qualifies as person: I've known dogs, cats, and horses that seem self-conscious, deliberating, self-directing...as I reckon it, these creatures might very well have souls...on the other hand: no fish, for example, or chicken ever seemed to be more than bio-automation

as for the poor soul caught in a coma: this, of course, is not their natural state...I think it's moral to assume that unresponsive person is still a person...entirely possible, however, they aren't (they, the soul, has mebbe flown the coop leavin' behind an empty, well, coop)


Still, let's fight through all that, to the more essential question: if human beings merely have a thing we label free will, what makes that particular property so special it is capable of conferring personal value on its possessor?

in itself, free will confers no special status...free will, you could say, is the result of bein' a person, not the source of personhood, though there's some chicken & the egg juxtaposition involved...mebbe the better way to say it is 'persons are free wills'

[henry quirk]

circling back a bit: what qualities or characteristics are associated with personhood?

Well, therein lies the problem...the one secular thought can't solve.

Agreed - I explicitly said as much right from the start. However, if the only way out of the problem is to have everyone believe the same religious thing as you do, then there isn't a solution. And as that would be an is from an ought, we cannot extrapolate from this sort of criticism of irreligion to any viable argument for any religion.

This is yet another thread that risks becoming a broken-wheeled vehicle for proselytisation.

As for whether it is actually a problem, well it seems to be just a statement of how things work, so the problem lies in disagreements over the utilisation of the tool, not so much the tool itself.

first off: ain't nuthin' gonna be truly defined then put up on a shelf for the world to marvel at

as I say: this thread is about the journey, not the destination

second off: everyone participatin' in this thread already has his own mind on the subject of personhood...I'm not seein' any possibility of anyone convertin' anyone

so: this thread ain't about win or lose...it's a clear draw from the start

third off: anyone discomforted by opposin' views (that aren't likely to shift in your favor) ought to go find another thread to play in

just sayin'

[henry quirk]

As long as we don't take the metaphor of bestowal and start treating it as a litteral, I guess that's fine. But taking it beyond it's realistic extent and treating personhood as something actually decidable by a formal process in committee would be misleading. We recognise that something is a car by looking at it and seing a bunch of wheels on a platform, we recognise a horse by noticing an object that neighs instead of moos. We recognise a person by seeing similarities with ourselves and we deny personhood by not seeing similarity. Personhood is just a bit trickier than other categories because the list of similarities that are optional is hard discern.

sure, I get all this...personhood is, to you, not inherent...it, personhood, is conferred through recognition of similarity, yeah?

[henry quirk]

what is a person?

Which person. They're all different.

Or, are you asking what the word, "person," means?

In that case, a person is an individual human being.

"One person," means, "one human being."

well...okay

[Immanuel Can]

mebbe the better way to say is is persons are free wills

I think that's something very close to the truth. But it also means that nobody who believes in a Deterministic worldview, such as a Materialist, would have any grounds for their nagging intuition that personhood is a real thing. However, neither of us is a Determinist, so that does not touch us personally.

Animals, for all the choices some of them can make, are not determiners of their own life trajectories or embarkers on existential projects, or seekers of meaning. They have no awareness at all of that. They only invest themselves in what their instincts allow. Human beings, on the other hand, seem uniquely talented at putting off, modifying, resisting or even refusing the mere dictates of instinct, when it suits them to do so, in aid of participating in something they consider to have special meaning. That's certainly more freedom than animals ever have.

Personhood seems to be related to the idea that one's choices of how one's own life plays out should be respected...even if those choices are only rudimentary ones, or sometimes if they're even wrong ones.

That certainly does seem closely related to the issue of free will.

[henry quirk]

For once we agree. An infallible and unquestionable divine force would make moral realism work, and it would make categorical essentialism work also. Other supernatual objects such as souls would make personhood easy to define, and divine blessing given or withheld would sort out all controversy about gay marriage one way or the other.

way off the mark, I think

moral fact exists in the same way fire exists (a particular set of conditions are necessary for either)

ignore fire, someone's likely to get burned; ignore moral fact, someone's likely to get hurt

the soul, inextricably bound to flesh, is not just hangin' out there like my big crooked nose...we can infer it or choose to dismiss it as fairytale...in the end, though, somebody is gonna get hurt

doesn't seem to me God was lookin' to make perfect, but to make good and part of that deal is choice

[uwot]

Human beings... seem uniquely talented at putting off, modifying, resisting or even refusing the mere dictates of instinct, when it suits them to do so, in aid of participating in something they consider to have special meaning.

Indeed Mr Can, how clever we are to slice off bits of our genitals, refrain from eating meat on Fridays, not fuck anyone we haven't promised to be faithful to or believe that one human sacrifice can atone for all our naughtiness.

That's certainly more freedom than animals ever have.

Mr Can, your argument is that more rules make us more free. George Orwell wrote 1984 about people like you.