Proof of human nature

  • Thread starter Thread starter SaintNobody
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SaintNobody

Guest
Okay philosophers, I need you to talk up this subject.

I had a very context-specific discussion about natural law and the universality of morality in the context of a fetal rights/abortion debate.

The problem is not the science of proving that fetuses are human being.

The problem is proving that fetuses have human nature, i.e. that something special that makes us all “rights-bearers”.

In an objective discussion about human beings, my opponent will raise the objection: what makes human beings so special? I.e. we’re no more special than animals; we may even just be a bunch of atoms thrown together.

I know that when pro-lifers talk about the unborn child, they assume that the inherent worthiness of humanity is a given.

But honestly, I don’t think it’s a given in the minds of many.

In the minds of the average pro-abort, “worthiness” is something acquired by conforming to a certain set of criteria, and then it’s bestowed by our human community.

I can see the dangers of this method-- anyone can.

But how do you show that human beings possess a nature beyond the physical that is universal and that makes us all special?

Must there be a recourse to God to do this? Or can it be known from observation and inferences that do not directly deal with God?

I’d really like to get some ideas about how to talk about this issue.
 
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. . .”

It’s self-evident. I guess you either see it or you don’t. I would say that the inherant worth of a human being is in the same class of beliefs.
But in speaking with a moral relativist, you can always say it’s not worth arguing with him, since his arguments derive from no foundation more solid than the state of his digestion or his mood at the moment.
 
I’m not trying to necessarily convince the moral relativist I’m talking to. Lots of people may read my discussion.

Thomas Aquinas debated many things that were “self-evident”. It’s certainly not “self-evident” to non-Americans, I assure you!

This I think, partially explains, why Americans tend to be more pro-life than the rest of the developed world.
 
I don’t want this post pushed down.

I guess the real question is how do we show to secular non-believing people that there is a metaphysical reality, in plain words?

A lot of the problem is that much of this is so obvious that it takes a lot of words to explain. I’m not sure I’m making myself clear. But if you’ve ever studied St. Thomas, I think that would make sense.
 
One line of attack might go as follows:

  1. *]Everything belongs to a natural kind
    *]Humans are a natural kind
    *]Suppose unborn children were not human
    *]Then an unborn child would belong to a different natural kind (by 1, 2, 3)
    *]One natural kind of thing can become another only through a cause
    *]So there must be a cause why unborn child later become human (by 4 and 5)
    *]Over and above caring for the child, there is nothing further you need do to make it human.
    *]Hence, there is no cause why unborn children later become human (by 7)
    *]Therefore, the unborn child is not a different kind of thing from a human (contradiction from 3, 6, 8)

    I honestly can’t say how this approach would pan out. The main point that bothers me is the transition from 7 to 8, but the idea is that by giving a baby the proper care it needs simply in virtue of being a baby, it somehow turns into something else. This fact should cast doubt on the notion that babies and unborn children are of natural kinds distinct from humans.

    If all you’re really interested in is the abortion problem, you might try doing without human nature and focussing instead on a future-like-ours argument. (That last phrase is from a paper which should be easy to find in an ethics anthology.)
 
Just wanted to add some remarks more directly connected to the OP’s concerns:

Perhaps the point of most interest to the OP is how to argue 2. People who don’t believe in human nature are likely to reject the notion of a natural kind. The usual objection to human nature is that for nearly any property you care to mention, you can find one human that has the property and another human that doesn’t.

One point you might urge in your defence is that in order to verify these claims, we need to rely on our intuition of who counts as a human; and in order for such intuitions to carry any weight, they must be intuitions of a natural kind. If it were not so, we would only be arguing about intuitions concerning the meaning of the word “human,” and it would not be at all clear, for example, why the meaning of this word was associated with the idea of “rights” and “dignity.”

Another point would be that a few moments ago (when your debate partners were arguing that the unborn children are not human) they were prepared to say that humans must have certain properties, such as the ability to reason, speak, recognize faces, or what have you. So, in effect, your debate partners would at least have to find another objection to the idea of human nature
 
I think one of the problems that the Pro-Life movement and Catholics in general have succumb to in recent years is talking idiomatically in terms of “worth” and “nature.”

This is not to say that these things DONT exist, but I think they exist [and must exist] outside of an idiom. While those that attach “worth” to life or a level of “nature” to life at certain points we presuppose a lot.

What I mean is this: Human Life is something. When we start talking about WORTH at any degree or level we have already lost the argument. Even to say that it has some ultimate exact worth as compared to something else. Someone like PJPII would say that ONLY humans have worth. This personalist philosophy exists exactly to remove worth of all other things except for humans. Moral and Ethical truth stem from this.

I do think that this type of philosophy could exist w/o a belief in God, but it becomes more complicated.

So in otherwords, you cannot let someone “define” the rules of the universe because then the question is warped beyond repair. The best thing to do is to explain that only humans have a worth at all. Everything else is subordinate to humans. This is humanity or human nature. From this base, you can easily establish the supreme worth of humans at any “level”.
 
Our starting point has to be the inalienable right of all human beings to life. If that is denied we are wasting our time trying to defend the right of the unborn child to life. I use word “child” deliberately because at no stage of development from conception to birth is there an abrupt transition from one type of being to another. If the process is not interrupted a child is born. Being unborn in itself does not affect a child’s right to life. Otherwise abortion would be permissible one second before birth! Pregnancy is sometimes interrupted by a miscarriage but deliberate intervention to prevent the natural outcome of conception is obviously a moral issue. The Church teaches that it is justified only in extraordinary circumstances - such as when the birth of the child is a lesser evil than the death of the mother. This is a very difficult question which does not concern us here because we are considering normal development. What is certain is that abortion prevents a human being from being born and is evil because it defeats the purpose of procreation.
 
angelsdefendus said:
Our starting point has to be the inalienable right of all human beings to life. If that is denied we are wasting our time trying to defend the right of the unborn child to life. I use word “child” deliberately because at no stage of development from conception to birth is there an abrupt transition from one type of being to another. If the process is not interrupted a child is born. Being unborn in itself does not affect a child’s right to life. Otherwise abortion would be permissible one second before birth! Pregnancy is sometimes interrupted by a miscarriage but deliberate intervention to prevent the natural outcome of conception is obviously a moral issue. The Church teaches that it is justified only in extraordinary circumstances - such as when the birth of the child is a lesser evil than the death of the mother. This is a very difficult question which does not concern us here because we are considering normal development. What is certain is that abortion prevents a human being from being born and is evil because it defeats the purpose of procreation.
Click to expand...
 
Our starting point has to be the inalienable right of all human beings to life. If that is denied we are wasting our time trying to defend the right of the unborn child to life. I use word ‘child’ deliberately because at no stage of development from conception to birth is there an abrupt transition from one type of being to another. If the process is not interrupted a child is born. Being unborn in itself does not affect a child’s right to life. Otherwise abortion would be permissible one second before birth! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pregnancy is sometimes interrupted by a miscarriage but deliberate intervention to prevent the natural outcome of conception is obviously a moral issue. The Church teaches that it is justified only in extraordinary circumstances - such as when the birth of the child is a lesser evil than the death of the mother. This is a very difficult question which does not concern us here because we are considering normal development. What is certain is that abortion prevents a human being from being born and is evil because it defeats the purpose of procreation.
 
Tony, when I argue, I talk to people who don’t believe in the inalienable right to life.

This is perceived to be an American concept because of its constitution.

When you discuss the idea of rights with people, they often don’t have a clue that rights come from God. They think rights come from the state, or rights are a function of the will of the people.

Just ask yourself this question: why are some rights inalienable?
 
Angel

You lost me. I don’t know if I can really defend the idea that only people have worth.

Even then, the opposition would come back with “an embryo is not a person”.

Or that embryo life is less worthy than a baby’s life.
 
SaintNobody said:
Tony, when I argue, I talk to people who don’t believe in the inalienable right to life.
Click to expand...
Then you have to ask them what rights they do believe in - if any. Do they recognise the distinction between good and evil> And if so why?
This is perceived to be an American concept because of its constitution.
When you discuss the idea of rights with people, they often don’t have a clue that rights come from God. They think rights come from the state, or rights are a function of the will of the people.
Click to expand...
Then you also have to ask them whether the state or the will of the people is infallible! Neither has proved to be so in the past. The rights of slaves were virtually nil…
Just ask yourself this question: why are some rights inalienable?
Because of the immense value of life and the uniqueness of every individual.
 
SaintNobody said:
Tony, when I argue, I talk to people who don’t believe in the inalienable right to life.
Click to expand...
Then you have to ask them what rights they do believe in - if any. Do they recognise the distinction between good and evil> And if so why?
This is perceived to be an American concept because of its constitution.
When you discuss the idea of rights with people, they often don’t have a clue that rights come from God. They think rights come from the state, or rights are a function of the will of the people.
Click to expand...
Then you also have to ask them whether the state or the will of the people is infallible! Neither has proved to be so in the past.
Just ask yourself this question: why are some rights inalienable?
Click to expand...
Because of the immense value of life and the uniqueness of every individual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top