personhood

[Immanuel Can]

There are no natural rights. Nature does not deal in rights.

That is exactly what every Materialist, Physicalist and Atheist has to believe...that is, if she is rationally consistent at all.

The more power and freedom , the more moral responsibility towards others.

Non-sequitur, B: it does not follow at all.

The more power a person has, in a world without natural rights, the less he needs to take anybody else's pleas about his alleged "responsibility" seriously. He has none.

On what basis will you say to such a one, "Well, you are responsible to be kind/fair/just/equitable?"

His answer is easy: "Make me."

But a materialist can still believe in God in His function as the Good.

Actually, he can't. He has to believe that if there is any entity in the universe, it is ultimately a material one. That's by definition, I'm afraid.

It is interesting that you have almost stated explicitly that the traditional Christian God created not only the physical world but also Heavenly or eternal value. Perhaps you would endorse this?

"Heavenly or eternal value"? I'm not actually sure what that means...it's not a phrase I've employed myself, it's yours. It sounds sort of Platonic, but I'm certainly not a Platonist.

" Power is not limited to pleasing yourself but is the power of a man who is all he can be, a man who is fully aware he is not alone in the world but that there is also the other. Power is not ignorance of that fact. Lack of power includes lack of that knowledge."

The powerful man certainly KNOWS there are other people around...the problem is that just KNOWING that does not indebted him to serve their interests at all, and certainly not above his own. I don't doubt that Hitler knew "others" existed: he just preferred to kill them.

...others' value as well as his own.The man who does not know this lacks a main part of the best that he can be or might have been.

What fact rationally establishes that "others" have "value"? And what fact even rationally establishes "his own" value? Indeed, what establishes that there IS inherent value (rather than, say, merely instrumental utility) in anything at all? For the powerful man can, of course, believe he can make others "useful" to him without deciding they have intrinsic value of their own, value apart from his present purposes. He might well decide their ONLY value is instrumental...that if he can use them, they count, and if he can't they just don't.

[henry quirk]

I seem to recall you suggesting that all your moral reality derives from a principle which you appear quite certain is not religious, about man owning himself.

well, the fact a man belongs to himself and the moral fact so it's wrong to treat a man as property, to use him both come from god...I don't talk about it much but that's my view


I'm pretty sure you specified a you wouldn't use any Crom stuff to justify your moral fact claims, which all spring from that one supposedly secular fact, no?

sure, I leave him out if it...folks yourself poo-poo god-belief...why give you a target? besides, I can begin with those universal intuitions and make my case: a man belongs to himself so it's wrong for others to leash him works just fine without invitin' Crom to the party

as I see it: god doesn't make appearances, doesn't introduce avatars to the world, and doesn't rely on texts, so he built us to get along fine without him...conscience, the moral sense, the moral compass informed by that fact and moral fact, are what we got, along with free will and reason and a basic package of features that set us apart from chimps

so -- no -- I'm not a secular fellow and my notions aren't secular, but I guess I can see why you might think different

[FlashDangerpants]

You are such a broken zealot...

Ad hominem.

...either God created and sustains all categories which are perfect and eternal and [in]corruptible.... or pure randomness and no meaning to anything.

"Pure randomness" is amorality. If you believe that, you inescapably have to be an amoralist.

But you say there's an alternative I can't think of. So explain, then, what is this alleged middle ground I'm missing. Justify any moral precept you like...I'll let you pick it...without appealing to moral facts, gratuitous affirmations, or the existence of God.

Go ahead.

We've had similar discussions before and they were unsatisfactory largely as a result of your conduct. If I am going to take the time to do what you request here, you will then start replying before bothering to read, and you will dismember my post in the process, treating each sentence as if it unrelated to any other. As I would largely be repeating stuff you have already treated in thios way, I cannot see any purpose in any of that.

Suffice with the most important part. Arbitrary conventions are abitrary in the sense that they could have been otherwise than they are, this is not the same as untethered randomness.

[henry quirk]

...this...

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/02/why-pion ... the-brain/

...belongs in this thread

[commonsense]

I’m not sure that free will is a distinguishing characteristic of personhood, since, after all, wild animals are not restricted in their actions except by their bodies and their environment. Wouldn’t it make more sense to rely on human form, with or without free will.

free will isn't license...it's not about lack of restrictions

free will about choice: the capacity, the intent, the purpose, the deliberation (de-liberation)

personhood isn't about form or shape or even function; it's about a particular & peculiar set of qualities and characteristics

humans possess, and are defined, by those qualities & characteristics; it's entirely possible certain non-human life (whales, mebbe) possess, and are defined by, those qualities & characteristics as well

Agreed. I just wanted to make sure that whales, etc., don’t get counted as persons, thereby adding the part about human form. I sometimes think that non-human animals make choices, too, but its probably instinctual. I do suppose that animals are self-aware (when I step on my dog’s foot—sorry, Pogo—he seems to be aware of himself).

[FlashDangerpants]

I seem to recall you suggesting that all your moral reality derives from a principle which you appear quite certain is not religious, about man owning himself.

well, the fact a man belongs to himself and the moral fact so it's wrong to treat a man as property, to use him both come from god...I don't talk about it much but that's my view


I'm pretty sure you specified a you wouldn't use any Crom stuff to justify your moral fact claims, which all spring from that one supposedly secular fact, no?

sure, I leave him out if it...folks yourself poo-poo god-belief...why give you a target? besides, I can begin with those universal intuitions and make my case: a man belongs to himself so it's wrong for others to leash him works just fine without invitin' Crom to the party

as I see it: god doesn't make appearances, doesn't introduce avatars to the world, and doesn't rely on texts, so he built us to get along fine without him...conscience, the moral sense, the moral compass informed by that fact and moral fact, are what we got, along with free will and reason and a basic package of features that set us apart from chimps

so -- no -- I'm not a secular fellow and my notions aren't secular, but I guess I can see why you might think different

Unless you want to evoke that religion to underpin your argument, the argument itself is secular. Whether it works in a secular format is another matter, the self-ownership bit seems to be a harder sell to actual non-religious types than it is to those accustomed to divine sparks of grace, or souls or whatever that woo-woo PeteJ likes might be. You use it a lot like a placeholder for that mystical substance that is the difference between man and animal that actual secular types don't believe exists.

[henry quirk]

I’m not sure that free will is a distinguishing characteristic of personhood, since, after all, wild animals are not restricted in their actions except by their bodies and their environment. Wouldn’t it make more sense to rely on human form, with or without free will.

free will isn't license...it's not about lack of restrictions

free will about choice: the capacity, the intent, the purpose, the deliberation (de-liberation)

personhood isn't about form or shape or even function; it's about a particular & peculiar set of qualities and characteristics

humans possess, and are defined, by those qualities & characteristics; it's entirely possible certain non-human life (whales, mebbe) possess, and are defined by, those qualities & characteristics as well

Agreed. I just wanted to make sure that whales, etc., don’t get counted as persons, thereby adding the part about human form. I sometimes think that non-human animals make choices, too, but its probably instinctual. I do suppose that animals are self-aware (when I step on my dog’s foot—sorry, Pogo—he seems to be aware of himself).

well, as I say: there very well maybe non-human persons...whales (some species) may be persons (alien persons)

[Immanuel Can]

You are such a broken zealot...

Ad hominem.

...either God created and sustains all categories which are perfect and eternal and [in]corruptible.... or pure randomness and no meaning to anything.

"Pure randomness" is amorality. If you believe that, you inescapably have to be an amoralist.

But you say there's an alternative I can't think of. So explain, then, what is this alleged middle ground I'm missing. Justify any moral precept you like...I'll let you pick it...without appealing to moral facts, gratuitous affirmations, or the existence of God.

Go ahead.

We've had similar discussions before and they were unsatisfactory largely as a result of your conduct.

Well, they might have been unsatisfactory to you -- I can't say. What I've found is that I can't get a straight answer out of you.

Suffice with the most important part. Arbitrary conventions are abitrary in the sense that they could have been otherwise than they are, this is not the same as untethered randomness.

Actually, it is.

To say that something is "arbitrary" is only to say that the only anchor it has is in the will of the person expressing it. Nothing in reality itself, nor anything in the common world, makes it necessary. It's arbitrary. So that entails that we would need to show that "the will of Flash" is something with moral significance, such that others should, if they are being moral, pay attention to it.

And how would you show that? But if you couldn't, then "arbitrary" does indeed mean "untethered": it means your moral claims are all without any basis, reason, obligation, duty or weight. Nobody is under any burden to pay attention to them, then.

So your moral judgments might seem important to Flash; but you couldn't show that that was more than a contingent fact, one that could easily have been otherwise than it might happen to be, and you couldn't show that anybody had a reason to think it was important that Flash just happened to have held, for awhile, this or that moral view.

[henry quirk]

I seem to recall you suggesting that all your moral reality derives from a principle which you appear quite certain is not religious, about man owning himself.

well, the fact a man belongs to himself and the moral fact so it's wrong to treat a man as property, to use him both come from god...I don't talk about it much but that's my view


I'm pretty sure you specified a you wouldn't use any Crom stuff to justify your moral fact claims, which all spring from that one supposedly secular fact, no?

sure, I leave him out if it...folks yourself poo-poo god-belief...why give you a target? besides, I can begin with those universal intuitions and make my case: a man belongs to himself so it's wrong for others to leash him works just fine without invitin' Crom to the party

as I see it: god doesn't make appearances, doesn't introduce avatars to the world, and doesn't rely on texts, so he built us to get along fine without him...conscience, the moral sense, the moral compass informed by that fact and moral fact, are what we got, along with free will and reason and a basic package of features that set us apart from chimps

so -- no -- I'm not a secular fellow and my notions aren't secular, but I guess I can see why you might think different

Unless you want to evoke that religion to underpin your argument, the argument itself is secular. Whether it works in a secular format is another matter, the self-ownership bit seems to be a harder sell to actual non-religious types than it is to those accustomed to divine sparks of grace, or souls or whatever that woo-woo PeteJ likes might be. You use it a lot like a placeholder for that mystical substance that is the difference between man and animal that actual secular types don't believe exists.

well, if I haven't elsewhere, I've certainly outed myself as a soulist in this thread

from the thread's beginning...

there's a few ways to look at it, but definitions of personhood mostly seem to fall into one of three categories...

one is exampled by what roy posted: I call it the zen category

a second category is exampled by folks who claim personhood is solely a legal construct: I call it the bestowed category

the last is exampled by folks like me who claim there is a particular & peculiar sumthin' present in, and inseparable from, certain kinds of living things (like man) that sets these living things apart from all the otherb living things: I call it the ensouled category

[commonsense]

free will isn't license...it's not about lack of restrictions

free will about choice: the capacity, the intent, the purpose, the deliberation (de-liberation)

personhood isn't about form or shape or even function; it's about a particular & peculiar set of qualities and characteristics

humans possess, and are defined, by those qualities & characteristics; it's entirely possible certain non-human life (whales, mebbe) possess, and are defined by, those qualities & characteristics as well

Agreed. I just wanted to make sure that whales, etc., don’t get counted as persons, thereby adding the part about human form. I sometimes think that non-human animals make choices, too, but its probably instinctual. I do suppose that animals are self-aware (when I step on my dog’s foot—sorry, Pogo—he seems to be aware of himself).

well, as I say: there very well maybe non-human persons...whales (some species) may be persons (alien persons)

I’ll bet that’s why the marine biologists are tagging them.

[henry quirk]

...that seems pertinent...

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/10/your-min ... s-to-know/

[henry quirk]

Agreed. I just wanted to make sure that whales, etc., don’t get counted as persons, thereby adding the part about human form. I sometimes think that non-human animals make choices, too, but its probably instinctual. I do suppose that animals are self-aware (when I step on my dog’s foot—sorry, Pogo—he seems to be aware of himself).

well, as I say: there very well maybe non-human persons...whales (some species) may be persons (alien persons)

I’ll bet that’s why the marine biologists are tagging them.

that's why they tagged me

[FlashDangerpants]

well, if I haven't elsewhere, I've certainly outed myself as a soulist in this thread

The context in which I wrote the thing that I have been getting this pointless and repetitive grief over is that I referenced the simple fucking fact that you and Vaginal Aqualung have both been trying for months to ground your arguments about moral fact in explicitly non-religious terms with no reference to any deity underpinnig your fact claims, whereas Mannie was accusing me of trying but failing to do the same, thus I told Mannie to take that shit up with you and Vegetable Astronaut, because you two are the ones to whom it was relevant - not me, I don't GAF.

The subsidiary fact that one of you makes secular arguments because he's an atheist while the other makes secular arguments because he thinks he doesn't need a deity to underpin those arguments is neither here nor there. None of this conversation has much of anything to do with your thread, and none of it interesting.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ad hominem.


"Pure randomness" is amorality. If you believe that, you inescapably have to be an amoralist.

But you say there's an alternative I can't think of. So explain, then, what is this alleged middle ground I'm missing. Justify any moral precept you like...I'll let you pick it...without appealing to moral facts, gratuitous affirmations, or the existence of God.

Go ahead.

We've had similar discussions before and they were unsatisfactory largely as a result of your conduct.

Well, they might have been unsatisfactory to you -- I can't say. What I've found is that I can't get a straight answer out of you.

Suffice with the most important part. Arbitrary conventions are abitrary in the sense that they could have been otherwise than they are, this is not the same as untethered randomness.

Actually, it is.

To say that something is "arbitrary" is only to say that the only anchor it has is in the will of the person expressing it. Nothing in reality itself, nor anything in the common world, makes it necessary. It's arbitrary. So that entails that we would need to show that "the will of Flash" is something with moral significance, such that others should, if they are being moral, pay attention to it.

And how would you show that? But if you couldn't, then "arbitrary" does indeed mean "untethered": it means your moral claims are all without any basis, reason, obligation, duty or weight. Nobody is under any burden to pay attention to them, then.

So your moral judgments might seem important to Flash; but you couldn't show that that was more than a contingent fact, one that could easily have been otherwise than it might happen to be, and you couldn't show that anybody had a reason to think it was important that Flash just happened to have held, for awhile, this or that moral view.

Again, none of that is my problem, I am not a moral realist, so accusing me of failing at moral realism is ineffective.

[Immanuel Can]

Again, none of that is my problem, I am not a moral realist, so accusing me of failing at moral realism is ineffective.

I'm not accusing you of "failing at moral realism." I don't suppose you're even trying to be that, so you can't fail at that. And I'm not accusing.

But what you're not managing to do is to justify the existence of any morality AT ALL....even of the worst or best things, as most people would assess them, in life, from murder to mercy.

If that stands, that makes you an amoralist by logic, even if you don't know you are. Since you can't justify even one single moral precept or explain why any person should ever believe one, all you're left with is blanket denial of all justification for morality.