F
fakename
Guest
I was arguing about this awhile ago. Perhaps a fitting start might also be to ask what is “objectification”?
Thanks
Thanks
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Treating individuals as scientific objects rather than subjects, i.e. as things rather than persons.I was arguing about this awhile ago. Perhaps a fitting start might also be to ask what is “objectification”?
Thanks
F
fakename
Guest
Now in what way does treating someone as scientific objects take away their dignity?Treating individuals as scientific objects rather than subjects, i.e. as things rather than persons.
And what do you mean by “treating”, a word which could mean anything from human experimentation to voluntary studies.
Perhaps you mean that treating someone other than as a person logically implies reducing them to that state and therefore by doing this you treat them unjustly (since a person is a person with rights and not an inanimate object)?
If that is the case, it follows that being a subject of scientific tests would be wrong because it would encourage the scientist to view you as a tool for science. But it is not true that being such a subject is wrong.
Positively though, perhaps its okay to be a tool for science since “toolness” is morally neutral and people can alienate some of their rights and because everything is everything else in some aspect. So too it would be unsurprising and morally uncontroversial if it happened that humans could also be thought as tools in one way w/o being considered tools in their whole nature.
D
davidv
Guest
A person undergoing diagnostic procedures is still being (or should be) treated as a subject. The unborn baby in the womb has become an object to the abortionist.Now in what way does treating someone as scientific objects take away their dignity?
And what do you mean by “treating”, a word which could mean anything from human experimentation to voluntary studies.
Perhaps you mean that treating someone other than as a person logically implies reducing them to that state and therefore by doing this you treat them unjustly (since a person is a person with rights and not an inanimate object)?
If that is the case, it follows that being a subject of scientific tests would be wrong because it would encourage the scientist to view you as a tool for science. But it is not true that being such a subject is wrong.
Positively though, perhaps its okay to be a tool for science since “toolness” is morally neutral and people can alienate some of their rights and because everything is everything else in some aspect. So too it would be unsurprising and morally uncontroversial if it happened that humans could also be thought as tools in one way w/o being considered tools in their whole nature.
L
Linux
Guest
I wasn’t aware that abortionist was a science.A person undergoing diagnostic procedures is still being (or should be) treated as a subject. The unborn baby in the womb has become an object to the abortionist.
D
davidv
Guest
Medical procedures are a science.I wasn’t aware that abortionist was a science.
L
Linux
Guest
In respect of testing procedures and refining them, there is a science to that. But the act of abortion its self is not a science it is simply a procedure.Medical procedures are a science.
D
davidv
Guest
Clearly missing my point.In respect of testing procedures and refining them, there is a science to that. But the act of abortion its self is not a science it is simply a procedure.
A
Aloysium
Guest
off the top of my head :twocents:
“objectification” with regards to human dignity, is what occurs when one excludes love and communication, in a relationship with another human being
the other can be perceived, understood in terms of physical properties, psychological dynamics even moral principles; but if there is no true relationship, that person is objectified
treating the person as a thing leads to use and abuse
it is what occurred with the fall: Gen 3:16 “. . . Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”
objectification is the antithesis of what we are commanded to do:
Matt 22:39 “The second resembles it: You must love your neighbour as yourself.”
Luke 10:27 “He replied, ‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself.’”
Mark 12:31 “The second is this: You must love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.’”
just some thoughts
“objectification” with regards to human dignity, is what occurs when one excludes love and communication, in a relationship with another human being
the other can be perceived, understood in terms of physical properties, psychological dynamics even moral principles; but if there is no true relationship, that person is objectified
treating the person as a thing leads to use and abuse
it is what occurred with the fall: Gen 3:16 “. . . Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”
objectification is the antithesis of what we are commanded to do:
Matt 22:39 “The second resembles it: You must love your neighbour as yourself.”
Luke 10:27 “He replied, ‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself.’”
Mark 12:31 “The second is this: You must love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.’”
just some thoughts
T
tonyrey
Guest
Now in what way does treating someone as scientific objects take away their dignity?
And what do you mean by “treating”, a word which could mean anything from human experimentation to voluntary studies.
Perhaps you mean that treating someone other than as a person logically implies reducing them to that state and therefore by doing this you treat them unjustly (since a person is a person with rights and not an inanimate object)?
If that is the case, it follows that being a subject of scientific tests would be wrong because it would encourage the scientist to view you as a tool for science. But it is not true that being such a subject is wrong.
Positively though, perhaps its okay to be a tool for science since “toolness” is morally neutral and people can alienate some of their rights and because everything is everything else in some aspect. So too it would be unsurprising and morally uncontroversial if it happened that humans could also be thought as tools in one way w/o being considered tools in their whole nature.
- It should not be necessary to specify that “treating individuals as scientific objects” means "“treating individuals as **solely **scientific objects”, especially as I added " “as things rather than persons”.
- Do you regard persons as **solely **scientific objects?
- If not why not?
F
fakename
Guest
OK thanks for the clarification.
- It should not be necessary to specify that “treating individuals as scientific objects” means "“treating individuals as **solely **scientific objects”, especially as I added " “as things rather than persons”.
- Do you regard persons as **solely **scientific objects?
- If not why not?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.