personhood

[commonsense]

A dead body has human form, but no "personhood." A handicapped human being may lack the ideal human form, but has free will and personhood. A person in a vegetative state, or a baby in the womb, has human form but people still debate their state as "persons."

So that's not quite a quick route to a solution.

Let’s take the word, “ideal”, out and add the word, “living”.

Plausible move. But now we've still got the vexed cases of vegetative people and the unborn, at minimum, both with living forms of humanity but under siege for status as "persons."

Yes, controversial cases. Some regard the unborn as potential persons, but others do not. Comatose patients are often considered as if they were merely sleeping.

[Immanuel Can]

Let’s take the word, “ideal”, out and add the word, “living”.

Plausible move. But now we've still got the vexed cases of vegetative people and the unborn, at minimum, both with living forms of humanity but under siege for status as "persons."

Yes, controversial cases. Some regard the unborn as potential persons, but others do not. Comatose patients are often considered as if they were merely sleeping.

That's the problem. We don't know if our "regard" is correct. And to call somebody a "person" is to attribute to them a bunch of rights we don't know if we want to give, or alternatively, to take away from them. So they fully meet the biological definition of "human," no question...but we want to know what we owe them in "personhood" attributions.

Or course, if we DON'T kill them, and if we ascribe the whole package of human rights to them -- even WRONGLY ascribe them -- then we will not do any evil. But if they ARE persons, and we butcher them, or deprive them of rights they actually SHOULD have...well, that's evil, obviously.

So the "personhood" problem is about knowing what we are doing, when we treat certain others in certain ways.

[commonsense]

Plausible move. But now we've still got the vexed cases of vegetative people and the unborn, at minimum, both with living forms of humanity but under siege for status as "persons."

Yes, controversial cases. Some regard the unborn as potential persons, but others do not. Comatose patients are often considered as if they were merely sleeping.

That's the problem. We don't know if our "regard" is correct. And to call somebody a "person" is to attribute to them a bunch of rights we don't know if we want to give, or alternatively, to take away from them. So they fully meet the biological definition of "human," no question...but we want to know what we owe them in "personhood" attributions.

Or course, if we DON'T kill them, and if we ascribe the whole package of human rights to them -- even WRONGLY ascribe them -- then we will not do any evil. But if they ARE persons, and we butcher them, or deprive them of rights they actually SHOULD have...well, that's evil, obviously.

So the "personhood" problem is about knowing what we are doing, when we treat certain others in certain ways.

Excellent point.

[Belinda]

To grant personhood to animals does not include giving them the right to fight for their nation, or vote for a political party, or receive tertiary education. It does give them the right to freedom to express normal behaviours for that species.

You can grant that it is right to treat animals in certain ways without granting them personhood. But only persons can make decisions about the rights of animals. It never works in reverse.

So animals are not themselves persons.

Nothing is itself a person and animals are not usually consodered to have rights.

Personhood is a status of having certain rights that are either appropriated or conferred. Men appropriate rights over other animals because they can.

[seeds]

[......]
This is why abortion is so tragic, for it never takes into account the vast and “eternal potential” of a human soul that gets snuffed-out before the “lights on” awakening event of birth.

Of which I have often considered the horrifying thought that it would be better if you killed the infant after it was born. That way, there at least exists the possibility that it will experience a second and final birth into its ultimate and eternal form (again, the same form as God) in a higher context of reality.

If you persist in your faith in "a higher context of reality" you will vitiate at least some of your intention to make this world a better place.

If all I am doing is taking what we already think we know about reality...

(from both the material and the spiritual perspectives)

...and trying to create a new and higher plateau of metaphysical understanding as to what God and our ultimate and eternal destiny might be,...

...then tell me, B, how does that vitiate my intention to make the world a better place?

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

In an earlier post Seeds wrote:

If I am allowed to address that question from a spiritual (Biblical) perspective, then it needs to be understood that humans are declared to have been created in the image of God.

In other words, humans are the “same species of being” as God (as in God’s literal offspring). While, on the other hand, all of the other lifeforms on earth are not, and do not share in the same sort of everlasting personhood as God.

Your belief is pre-Darwinian. We know that species are not essentially fixed and ordained by God.

We have debated this issue before, B.

The fact of the matter is that Darwinism is predicated on the blind (and unquestioned) acceptance of a state of pre-established order that had to be in place before evolution could even begin.

And the point is that Darwinian evolution might be able to explain how the cogs and gears of the grand “machine” produce certain outcomes, however, in no way, shape, or form can it explain how the machine...

(i.e., an unfathomably stable solar “system” consisting of the perfect setting where architectural design information imbued within strands of DNA is literally powered by the perfect source of light, heat, and energy)

...came into existence.

And as to this:

We know that species are not essentially fixed and ordained by God.

God may indeed allow the vast majority of lifeforms on earth to manifest into existence via the processes of evolution.

However, in regards to God’s involvement in the creation of his own personal offspring (us), I have often suggested that the hidden meaning beneath the mythological event of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,...

...is simply that it was an allegorical representation of the moment (or era) when God may have had a hand in guiding his evolving hominids to awaken from the non self-awareness of animal consciousness, into the self-awareness of human consciousness.

Or better yet (as I have repeatedly posted elsewhere),...

...think of that moment in the movie - “2001: A Space Odyssey” - when the representation of some kind of universal intelligence in the form of a mysterious monolith...



...seemed to divinely inspire the ape-like hominids to begin the process of inward reflection and the willful grasping and control of the holographic-like imaging fabric of their own personal minds as they were then able to visualize how a bone could be used as a tool for hunting, or as a weapon for territorial dominance.



The point is that it was at that moment when the personhood of the human soul was allegorically established, thus the fulfillment of the decree:

“...Let us make man in our image...”

And of course that is not a reference to the image of our raggedy physical bodies, but to whatever it is that will be born out of our body at the moment of death.
_______

[Belinda]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

In an earlier post Seeds wrote:

If I am allowed to address that question from a spiritual (Biblical) perspective, then it needs to be understood that humans are declared to have been created in the image of God.

In other words, humans are the “same species of being” as God (as in God’s literal offspring). While, on the other hand, all of the other lifeforms on earth are not, and do not share in the same sort of everlasting personhood as God.

Your belief is pre-Darwinian. We know that species are not essentially fixed and ordained by God.

We have debated this issue before, B.

The fact of the matter is that Darwinism is predicated on the blind (and unquestioned) acceptance of a state of pre-established order that had to be in place before evolution could even begin.

And the point is that Darwinian evolution might be able to explain how the cogs and gears of the grand “machine” produce certain outcomes, however, in no way, shape, or form can it explain how the machine...

(i.e., an unfathomably stable solar “system” consisting of the perfect setting where architectural design information imbued within strands of DNA is literally powered by the perfect source of light, heat, and energy)

...came into existence.

And as to this:

We know that species are not essentially fixed and ordained by God.

God may indeed allow the vast majority of lifeforms on earth to manifest into existence via the processes of evolution.

However, in regards to God’s involvement in the creation of his own personal offspring (us), I have often suggested that the hidden meaning beneath the mythological event of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,...

...is simply that is was an allegorical representation of the moment (or era) when God may have had a hand in guiding his evolving hominids to awaken from the non self-awareness of animal consciousness, into the self-awareness of human consciousness.

Or better yet (as I have repeatedly posted elsewhere),...

...think of that moment in the movie - “2001: A Space Odyssey” - when the representation of some kind of universal intelligence in the form of a mysterious monolith...



...seemed to divinely inspire the ape-like hominids to begin the process of inward reflection and the willful grasping and control of the holographic-like imaging fabric of their own personal minds as they were then able to visualize how a bone could be used as a tool for hunting, or as a weapon for territorial dominance.



The point is that it was at that moment when the personhood of the human soul was allegorically established, thus the fulfillment of the decree:

“...Let us make man in our image...”

And of course that is not a reference to the image of our raggedy physical bodies, but to whatever it is that will be born out of our body at the moment of death.
_______

The trouble with believing personhood and other special favours were conferred on mankind by God is that , apart from the prejudiced vanity of it, other species are relegated to the status of commodities.

[seeds]

We know that species are not essentially fixed and ordained by God.

God may indeed allow the vast majority of lifeforms on earth to manifest into existence via the processes of evolution.

However, in regards to God’s involvement in the creation of his own personal offspring (us), I have often suggested that the hidden meaning beneath the mythological event of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,...

...is simply that it was an allegorical representation of the moment (or era) when God may have had a hand in guiding his evolving hominids to awaken from the non self-awareness of animal consciousness, into the self-awareness of human consciousness.

Or better yet (as I have repeatedly posted elsewhere),...

...think of that moment in the movie - “2001: A Space Odyssey” - when the representation of some kind of universal intelligence in the form of a mysterious monolith...



...seemed to divinely inspire the ape-like hominids to begin the process of inward reflection and the willful grasping and control of the holographic-like imaging fabric of their own personal minds as they were then able to visualize how a bone could be used as a tool for hunting, or as a weapon for territorial dominance.



The point is that it was at that moment when the personhood of the human soul was allegorically established, thus the fulfillment of the decree:

“...Let us make man in our image...”

And of course that is not a reference to the image of our raggedy physical bodies, but to whatever it is that will be born out of our body at the moment of death.

The trouble with believing personhood and other special favours were conferred on mankind by God is that , apart from the prejudiced vanity of it, other species are relegated to the status of commodities.

Belinda, you are free to confer personhood on any creature you so desire.

I mean, many a human thinks of their scruffy old poodles as being their children. Do you honestly hold that a poodle is a person in the same way that a human is a person?

Do you consider a house cat, or a chicken, or a mosquito, or a head of cabbage as possessing personhood?

Where do you draw the line, B?
_______

[Immanuel Can]

Personhood is a status of having certain rights that are either appropriated or conferred. Men appropriate rights over other animals because they can.

If they are merely "appropriated" or "conferred," they're not real. Those who "appropriate" rights merely assert their own power, and those who "confer" them assert their power over others.

But is power a moral basis for rights? If it is, then "might makes right" is all you can say.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Incorrect. If there is the sort of meaning that suits your purposes, it needs to be grounded in whatever a transcendent value might be. Otherewise there is the usual sort of meaning, that of a concept within a language that is determined by use. Same as the meaning for all other things is adapted as new ideas replace old ones.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Incorrect.

Show that, then. Start with the premise, "No God exists," and develop a chain of logic that rationally requires the conclusion, "Therefore, morality is obligatory." If you can do it, and your syllogism is solid, you've proved me wrong.

If there is the sort of meaning that suits your purposes, it needs to be grounded in whatever a transcendent value might be.

But Materialism, Physicalism and Atheism all deny that the transcendent CAN exist. All explanations for phenomena must be reduced, according to these beliefs, to something physical and material. If the transcendent can still exist, then these ontological positions are themselves indicated to be untrue: reality is not only the physical and material stuff, then.

As for Atheism, if it concedes that there is a transcendent, then absolutely no warrant for Atheism can ever be asserted...after all, how does any Atheist know what is possible in the transcendent, once he has conceded it exists? It's like he's said, "No God can exist, but all kinds of other immaterial stuff certainly does." How does he rationally sustain a claim that's so obviously gratuitous in the dismissal of one form of transcendence, while asserting dogmatically the existence of others for which he also has no empirical test?

So Atheism has to insist that the material existence empirically available to the Atheist is the sum and total of all that exists. If he does not assert that, his Atheism becomes nothing but an unsupportable decision to refuse one kind of transcendent belief while affirming all the others.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Incorrect.

Show that, then. Start with the premise, "No God exists," and develop a chain of logic that rationally requires the conclusion, "Therefore, morality is obligatory." If you can do it, and your syllogism is solid, you've proved me wrong.

If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

If there is the sort of meaning that suits your purposes, it needs to be grounded in whatever a transcendent value might be.

But Materialism, Physicalism and Atheism all deny that the transcendent CAN exist. All explanations for phenomena must be reduced, according to these beliefs, to something physical and material. If the transcendent can still exist, then these ontological positions are themselves indicated to be untrue: reality is not only the physical and material stuff, then.

As for Atheism, if it concedes that there is a transcendent, then absolutely no warrant for Atheism can ever be asserted...after all, how does any Atheist know what is possible in the transcendent, once he has conceded it exists? It's like he's said, "No God can exist, but all kinds of other immaterial stuff certainly does." How does he rationally sustain a claim that's so obviously gratuitous in the dismissal of one form of transcendence, while asserting dogmatically the existence of others for which he also has no empirical test?

So Atheism has to insist that the material existence empirically available to the Atheist is the sum and total of all that exists. If he does not assert that, his Atheism becomes nothing but an unsupportable decision to refuse one kind of transcendent belief while affirming all the others.

I'm not a hard materialist, none of the above describes anything to do with any position I have ever taken on any matter. My opinions on them are contained within the bit you left out of the quoting.


But on the whole, I'm not interested in any conversation about your religious mania, religion just isn't important. All we see here is that none of what you are arguing works without reference to beliefs that you hold and others don't, and without that presupposed belief, none of your arguments have any impact.

[Belinda]

Seeds wrote:

Belinda, you are free to confer personhood on any creature you so desire.

I mean, many a human thinks of their scruffy old poodles as being their children. Do you honestly hold that a poodle is a person in the same way that a human is a person?

Do you consider a house cat, or a chicken, or a mosquito, or a head of cabbage as possessing personhood?

Where do you draw the line, B?

_______

There is no line. Poodles can't vote, or fight for their countries, or wonder what next year will bring. Yet poodles can feel a lot of what we can feel. Like us, poodles can feel pain, affection, pleasure, hunger, thirst, need to do behaviours basic to their species, anxiety, uncertainty, and maternal care.

Because of the above poodles should be granted personal rights.These rights would differentiate between poodles and cabbages.Or between cabbages and these poor souls that are kept in American feed and breeding lots to provide cheap and nasty food.

[Belinda]

Personhood is a status of having certain rights that are either appropriated or conferred. Men appropriate rights over other animals because they can.

If they are merely "appropriated" or "conferred," they're not real. Those who "appropriate" rights merely assert their own power, and those who "confer" them assert their power over others.

But is power a moral basis for rights? If it is, then "might makes right" is all you can say.

There are no natural rights. Nature does not deal in rights. The more power and freedom , the more moral responsibility towards others.

[Immanuel Can]

Incorrect.

Show that, then. Start with the premise, "No God exists," and develop a chain of logic that rationally requires the conclusion, "Therefore, morality is obligatory." If you can do it, and your syllogism is solid, you've proved me wrong.

If I were a moral realist attempting to construct some set of moral fact without a divine overlord to reify them, I would have that problem. I'm not though, so feel free to take that up with Henry and Vestibule, who both are.

It doesn't get you off the hook, of course. Let Henry and I be the devil himself, it won't prove you're not. So you have to make your case in its own right, not on the basis of floating insults at others.

What you're admitting to, then, is believing in issuing moral imperatives to people when you know already you have no rational basis for them at all. I suppose you could insist that you don't back any moral precepts at all, but that would merely identify you as amoral. So you're stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea on that one, it seems.

What we can see is this. No line of conceivable logic goes from "No God exists" to "Therefore morality is obligatory." So that makes every consistent Atheist necessarily an amoralist. And only inconsistent and irrational Atheists can continue to plug for morals...at the expense of also being moral tyrants, since they have no rational basis for any of it, and can only enforce it, as Nietzsche said, by raw power, not by right.

So Atheism has to insist that the material existence empirically available to the Atheist is the sum and total of all that exists. If he does not assert that, his Atheism becomes nothing but an unsupportable decision to refuse one kind of transcendent belief while affirming all the others.

I'm not a hard materialist...

Then tell me; what transcendent properties or entities do you continue to insist exist...and what makes you confident they do? I'm interested in that.