What is a "person" ?

[tonyrey]

I think morality starts with genetics. We have very basic morality built into us (like a wolf pack has morality) in order to survive as social animals. From there, I think all the complex morality we come up with are entirely social aspects, although they are guided by the genetic aspects so much of it is not unexpected, but always up for debate.

Do you think that we’re capable of rejecting morality? After all, we are not forced to comply with it, are we?

Killing people is a bit different, because that’s our own species…

Why not kill one (or more) of our own species? It won’t affect the species, will it?

Rights for animals, in my opinion, are a matter of feeling and social upbringing…

Then how do animal rights differ from human rights?

responsibility is something people should take upon themselves to avoid consequences…

I don’t understand what you mean by “responsibility is something people should take upon themselves to avoid consequences”. If you’re found guilty of murder in a law court you are presumed to be responsible whether you admit it or not.

 

[liquidpele]

Do you think that we’re capable of rejecting morality? After all, we are not forced to comply with it, are we?

Why not kill one (or more) of our own species? It won’t affect the species, will it?

Then how do animal rights differ from human rights?

I don’t understand what you mean by “responsibility is something people should take upon themselves to avoid consequences”. If you’re found guilty of murder in a law court you are presumed to be responsible whether you admit it or not.

Yes, we are capable of both rejecting the social morality that our society holds, and the genetic morality by overriding our instincts with mental thought.

We do kill one or more of our own species… I would find it far more interesting if we didn’t.

Animal rights don’t differ that much from human rights… in fact, the only real difference is that animals are not of our species, so it’s harder to see them as “not human” or something that is not worth having rights. Basically, the rationalization of harming them is easier.

Responsibility, to me, is accepting that you’ve done something, or doing what you’re supposed to do. It’s a personal thing though… a court holding someone responsible is really just handing down a consequence… I guess you could say society holds people responsible by forcing down consequences. My point there was that people in power either take responsibility (do what is good for society), or consequences will be given to them by courts, angry mobs, whatever. In this sense, morality is very important because rejecting it has severe consequences, both for a person and for society. It’s a bit offtopic for the topic, so I’ll just end with saying that people in power are basically better much larger sums… they can come out on top, but the consequences if they mess up are much greater as well. I hope that came across clear… I’ve had a few this afternoon… it was a rough day

 

[Thales]

I was initially very interested in the topic header, but having read through the posts so far, in talking about rights, animal rights, and responsibilities, I think we’ve moved too far ahead of ourselves.

I think it would be much more interesting and insightful if we could stick to finding out what is a “person” by making propositions and then refining and building upon them until everyone agrees on what constitutes a person. From there I bet it might be easier to see why they should or should not have certain rights, and what the extent of them are.

I propose first that a person, a human being, has to have a body. So, part of personhood is occupying physical space.
Can we collectively agree so far?

 

[JDaniel]

That is a good way to put it, for now… if aliens or intelligent computers came and demanded to enter the discussion, they would probably need to have a say as well. We are the only race that I know of that entertains such an idea, so for now we are defining it. For most species, the object is to survive, not argue about whether they have a “right” to survive.

Pele:

How do you define “right”? (By “right,” I mean, to have the “right” to life, for example.)

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I was initially very interested in the topic header, but having read through the posts so far, in talking about rights, animal rights, and responsibilities, I think we’ve moved too far ahead of ourselves.

I think it would be much more interesting and insightful if we could stick to finding out what is a “person” by making propositions and then refining and building upon them until everyone agrees on what constitutes a person. From there I bet it might be easier to see why they should or should not have certain rights, and what the extent of them are.

I propose first that a person, a human being, has to have a body. So, part of personhood is occupying physical space.
Can we collectively agree so far?

I’m good with this one.

Could the possession of a self-consciousness be another proposition defining a person?

jd

 

[liquidpele]

I’m good with this one.

Could the possession of a self-consciousness be another proposition defining a person?

jd

That needs more revision… does a person in a coma have self-consciousness? What about a zygote? You would have to define consciousness first.

Might I suggest defining consciousness, in the sense that it defines a person, as the ability to consider one’s own thoughts and communicate them using language? In the interest of coma’s, sleep, etc, We could also add in that having the known potential to reach that state should be considered as well. Thoughts?

 

[Thales]

I’m good with this one.

Could the possession of a self-consciousness be another proposition defining a person?

jd

I agree. I’ve always thought the ability of the human being to ask questions about himself and to simply say “I”, distinguishes him amongst animals or any other form of living or non-living matter. The fact that we can say why is this happening to me or the collective us is the reason the human being suffers. I believe animals feel pain just like people but do not suffer because they lack self-consciousness to take pain personally.

 

[Thales]

That needs more revision… does a person in a coma have self-consciousness? What about a zygote? You would have to define consciousness first.

Good observation. How important is the idea of having potential towards these things? Can we say so far instead of actually having self-consciousness, that there is an essential potential for self-consciousness? Or the capacity for self-conciousness?

 

[liquidpele]

Good observation. How important is the idea of having potential towards these things? Can we say so far instead of actually having self-consciousness, that there is an essential potential for self-consciousness? Or the capacity for self-conciousness?

Capacity implies that you could have it immediately… so using it would disqualify a zygote or even potentially a newborn baby… is that something people could agree to? I figured it was not, so I offered using the world “potential” since I think that’s still an important aspect regardless.

 

[Thales]

Capacity implies that you could have it immediately… so using it would disqualify a zygote or even potentially a newborn baby… is that something people could agree to? I figured it was not, so I offered using the world “potential” since I think that’s still an important aspect regardless.

Potential works for me.
So far we have; a person is a physical entity that has the potential for self-consciousness.
I like potential, but does that leave the door open for saying; How do we know that sometime in the future a toad will not develope the ability to become aware of itself and its existence? Is there something about man that gives him the unique potential for self-consciousness? I can agree potential for self-conciousness is a distinguishing feature of being human, other questions are only necessary to define our unique potential for it.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, we are capable of both rejecting the social morality that our society holds, and the genetic morality by overriding our instincts with mental thought.

So it is not intrinsically evil or wrong to lie, steal, rape, torture, plunder or massacre? It’s just a question of habit and convention.

We do kill one or more of our own species… I would find it far more interesting if we didn’t.

So the main reason you find killing is undesirable is because it makes life less interesting?

Animal rights don’t differ that much from human rights.

So a mosquito has the same right to life as a man.

Basically, the rationalization of harming them is easier.

So morality amounts to nothing more than rationalization.

Responsibility, to me, is accepting that you’ve done something, or doing what you’re supposed to do.

“supposed” gives the game away. Now what does it imply, I wonder…

It’s a personal thing though… a court holding someone responsible is really just handing down a consequence… I guess you could say society holds people responsible by forcing down consequences. My point there was that people in power either take responsibility (do what is good for society), or consequences will be given to them by courts, angry mobs, whatever

.
In other words right is might.

In this sense, morality is very important because rejecting it has severe consequences, both for a person and for society.

In other words if you can get away with rape, robbery and murder you don’t have to worry.

 

[liquidpele]

Potential works for me.
So far we have; a person is a physical entity that has the potential for self-consciousness.
I like potential, but does that leave the door open for saying; How do we know that sometime in the future a toad will not develope the ability to become aware of itself and its existence? Is there something about man that gives him the unique potential for self-consciousness? I can agree potential for self-conciousness is a distinguishing feature of being human, other questions are only necessary to define our unique potential for it.

Well, we can say, with as much certainty as you can say anything, that a toad that is alive today is not going to develop conciousness within its lifespan. In the future, maybe toads will, but then again I would be willing to open up to them being classified as a “person” as well, or even intelligent robots - but that’s all hypothetical and not really worth discussing unless it happens. It would be more interesting discussing animals like chimps and dolphins, that actually do have some recognition of the self, but not as advanced as our own.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

 

[JDaniel]

That needs more revision… does a person in a coma have self-consciousness? What about a zygote? You would have to define consciousness first.

Yes, you are right. A person in a coma may, or may not, be self-consciousness. We just don’t know. People in a coma may be in such a restful state that their brain waves don’t register as profoundly as do those of non-comatose people.

Might I suggest defining consciousness, in the sense that it defines a person, as the ability to consider one’s own thoughts and communicate them using language? In the interest of coma’s, sleep, etc, We could also add in that having the known potential to reach that state should be considered as well. Thoughts?

Before restricting our definition, we might want to consider that L. Ron Hubbard, who proved that plant cells were sentient, thought that even the gametic cells, pre-conception, as well as the zygotic cells, post conception, were sentient. His experiments indicated that even at the cellular level, “living” cells could receive tone/audio, such as, noises, music, and vocalizations, and certain somatics, such as heat, cold, jostling, pressure, pain, and others and store them. Furthermore, loud, abrupt noises may even have caused a type of fear emotion. “Type of fear” is used here because the baby does not have the ability to send out shots of adrenalin yet.

Now, your definition seems to me to be good, however, it, too, is somewhat limited. By the way, if we go with your definition you will have become self-entrapped with regard to the zygote. The zygote - at the moment of “conception” - meets your definition of “having the known potential to reach that state should be considered as well.” If we go with this, we have a problem with abortion. Do you wish to restate your definition?

jd

 

[liquidpele]

Yes, you are right. A person in a coma may, or may not, be self-consciousness. We just don’t know. People in a coma may be in such a restful state that their brain waves don’t register as profoundly as do those of non-comatose people.

Before restricting our definition, we might want to consider that L. Ron Hubbard, who proved that plant cells were sentient, thought that even the gametic cells, pre-conception, as well as the zygotic cells, post conception, were sentient. His experiments indicated that even at the cellular level, “living” cells could receive tone/audio, such as, noises, music, and vocalizations, and certain somatics, such as heat, cold, jostling, pressure, pain, and others and store them. Furthermore, loud, abrupt noises may even have caused a type of fear emotion. “Type of fear” is used here because the baby does not have the ability to send out shots of adrenalin yet.

Now, your definition seems to me to be good, however, it, too, is somewhat limited. By the way, if we go with your definition you will have become self-entrapped with regard to the zygote. The zygote - at the moment of “conception” - meets your definition of “having the known potential to reach that state should be considered as well.” If we go with this, we have a problem with abortion. Do you wish to restate your definition?

jd

Wait wait wait… ** L. Ron Hubbard**…?? As in the guy who founded scientology? As in Tom Cruise?

Please tell me you didn’t just bring that conman up??

 

[Spirithound]

Wait wait wait… ** L. Ron Hubbard**…?? As in the guy who founded scientology? As in Tom Cruise?

Please tell me you didn’t just bring that conman up??

Also a science fiction writer. Wikipedia says nothing about his scientific endeavours though.

 

[Thales]

Well, we can say, with as much certainty as you can say anything, that a toad that is alive today is not going to develop conciousness within its lifespan. In the future, maybe toads will, but then again I would be willing to open up to them being classified as a “person” as well, or even intelligent robots - but that’s all hypothetical and not really worth discussing unless it happens. It would be more interesting discussing animals like chimps and dolphins, that actually do have some recognition of the self, but not as advanced as our own.

If we want to maintain that self-consciousness is a unique aspect of personhood, which I do, we may have to make some distinctions. Clearly there is something lacking in the animal kingdom which humans have. Personally I’m not convinced recognition of yourself in a mirror constitutes the same self-consciousness humans have. There is a distinction between self-awareness and self-consciousness. Self-awareness is the recognition that one exists while self-consciousness is the preoccupation with oneself. Clearly man is self-conscious, this thread being all the example I need to prove it.

I don’t want to get into all the technicalities of morality, but is man the only creature that abides by moral codes, be them revealed or created? Is man is the only creature that recognizes something as good or evil? Is a moral system more broadly encompassed by the ability to assign value to things? Maybe the next unique quality of man is that he has the unique ability to recognize and assign value.

 

[liquidpele]

If we want to maintain that self-consciousness is a unique aspect of personhood, which I do, we may have to make some distinctions. Clearly there is something lacking in the animal kingdom which humans have. Personally I’m not convinced recognition of yourself in a mirror constitutes the same self-consciousness humans have. There is a distinction between self-awareness and self-consciousness. Self-awareness is the recognition that one exists while self-consciousness is the preoccupation with oneself. Clearly man is self-conscious, this thread being all the example I need to prove it.

I don’t want to get into all the technicalities of morality, but is man the only creature that abides by moral codes, be them revealed or created? Is man is the only creature that recognizes something as good or evil? Is a moral system more broadly encompassed by the ability to assign value to things? Maybe the next unique quality of man is that he has the unique ability to recognize and assign value.

Well, even animals have a range of cognitive function, up to and being able to both recognize themselves and learn language. However, I agree there is a major difference there between animals and humans. The question is how to define it? One approach might be to not try for a hard definition, but instead use ourselves as the definition itself. Basically, we could start with an assumption (considering we are making the distinctions here) and say all humans are people. From there, we can use ourselves as the standard, and say that anything non-human with the potential to reach the typical human cognitive function (including consciousness, language, etc) within it’s lifespan should also be considered human. What do you think?

Morality we should stay away from I think… I believe morality is based on social order, like a wolf pack, and one can hardly consider wolves to be human beyond some primitive similarities. However, I do think that morality is built upon by social order and development, which no other animal does that I’m aware of… perhaps that extra boost of social morality is something that could be agreed on? Basically, having an idea of morality that isn’t totally based on biology?

 

[JDaniel]

Wait wait wait… ** L. Ron Hubbard**…?? As in the guy who founded scientology? As in Tom Cruise?

Please tell me you didn’t just bring that conman up??

And you know he was a “conman” how?

jd

 

[liquidpele]

And you know he was a “conman” how?

jd

Lets see… he started a “religion” based on space aliens that operates as a pyramid scheme while harassing and suing any person or organization that attempts to call them out for what they are, and that were investigated by the IRS and FBI. I can go into specifics if you want.

 

[RobbyS]

Yes, in the sense that “exist” means “continue to exist after it was created”. The lifespan of such a thing could be troublesome though. Also, by intelligent I assume you mean sentient. I think that is an important distinction.

“Intelligent” and “sentient” are different things. IAC. IA always seems to me to look back to Descartes’ notion of human beings and the emphasis on consciousness. People just can’t decide whether that is simply a matter of a functioning nervous system. or epiphenomen, or what. The things were are able to communicate suggests it is something “more.” That we best be “agnostic” but not in the Huxleyan sense of the word. We may be less" sure" of our own “existence” than of God’s.