Humanism

[Miles Teg]

The opposite of being alive is being dead. The opposite of being human is not being a human. Being alive and being human aren't opposites nor are they mutually exclusive. But, anyway, that's not what I said nor is even close to anything I said. What I said there's no difference is between a human in the born state and being a human in the unborn state.

Not being mutually exclusive does not mean that they are the same thing. Honestly, it's high school level logic. In order to prove that a fetus being alive means anything, you also need to distinguish it from other alive, non human organism, such as rice and chicken, and do so in a way that is relevant to the fetus's rights.

I thought we went over this already? You say that a ZEF doesn't posses any characteristics of a person yet, by your own admission, you can't define what a person is or when someone becomes instilled with it. So how do you know a ZEF isn't a person? The answer is that you don't.

Because while's we can't exactly define personhood, you can't argue that a fetus is clearly a human as long as it retains non-human characteristics, for example, not being able to feel pain. Overall, the list of human characteristics doesn't outweigh the non-human characteristics until roughly the second trimester, which is why it's a good neutral ground.

You ummm... Do realize that between the two of us, the only one to argue personhood is you, don't you?

That's because you're pretending that being alive is the same thing as being a human person, and I'm arguing with a more intelligent version of you that only lives in my hopes and dreams.

I'd like to have a word with your biology teacher, then. I'd also wonder where he got his PhD from.

Most likely from a credible institution. You are aware that most scientists and doctors don't share your views on abortion, for perfectly valid reasons, right?

 

[civ_king]

I'd like to have a word with your biology teacher, then. I'd also wonder where he got his PhD from.



Without being uber technical, it's basically a condition in which the brain doesn't fully form. As a result, people born with anencephaly basically lack any form of consciousness or higher brain functions.



Zygote
Embryo
Fetus

1) She
2) Impressive trap, if I say yes than it makes me appear a hypocrit, if I say no I appear evil or something
3) thanks for explaining it
4) we are still off topic

 

[Bei1052]

Not being mutually exclusive does not mean that they are the same thing. Honestly, it's high school level logic. In order to prove that a fetus being alive means anything, you also need to distinguish it from other alive, non human organism, such as rice and chicken, and do so in a way that is relevant to the fetus's rights.

I'm not so sure what kind of logic you're using, but it's no logic that I'm familiar with.

Explain to me why we need to distinguish a ZEF from other alive, non-human organisms? Especially since, you know, they're non-human organisms while a ZEF is a human. Why are we trying to distinguish between stages of development and species rather than species and species?

Because while's we can't exactly define personhood, you can't argue that a fetus is clearly a human as long as it retains non-human characteristics, for example, not being able to feel pain. Overall, the list of human characteristics doesn't outweigh the non-human characteristics until roughly the second trimester, which is why it's a good neutral ground.

Being able to feel pain is not a human characteristic. Most every living organism can feel pain. Furthermore, not every born human can feel pain. Are they now less than human? And, as I'm curious, what are these other "human characteristics" you speak of?

That's because you're pretending that being alive is the same thing as being a human person, and I'm arguing with a more intelligent version of you that only lives in my hopes and dreams.

I'm not "pretending" anything. I'm not the one who has mentioned personhood. You are. As a result, the burden is on you to define it and prove that a ZEF isn't a person. Not me to prove that it is. Of course, you can't prove that a ZEF isn't a person, considering the fact that you CAN'T EVEN DEFINE WHAT A PERSON IS. The only thing you can do is presuppose the fact that a ZEF isn't a person, and then construct an argument based on that supposition, which is fallacious. I'm not so sure even you understand what it is you're arguing.

Most likely from a credible institution. You are aware that most scientists and doctors don't share your views on abortion, for perfectly valid reasons, right?

You do realize that I never said all scientists and doctors share my view of abortion. I said that virtually no doctor or scientist would ever argue that a ZEF at any stage isn't a human or alive, because it most certainly is.

 

[Bill3000]

Do you know why the issue of personhood is philosophical mumbo-jumbo? Because, not only is it undefinable (Thus meaning you can't use it to deny someone rights), it exists solely to discriminate against one subset of the population. But, see, we can play this game.

It doesn't discriminate against one subset of the population; it applies to all beings regardless of their species, or even if they're organic or not.

Define a "person".

An organism is a person when it is conscious, self-aware, and capable of feeling pain.

If you seriously want to understand these issues, read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or something. Just because it's hard doesn't mean you can dismiss it as philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Miles Teg]

I'm not so sure what kind of logic you're using, but it's no logic that I'm familiar with.

Explain to me why we need to distinguish a ZEF from other alive, non-human organisms? Especially since, you know, they're non-human organisms while a ZEF is a human. Why are we trying to distinguish between stages of development and species rather than species and species?

Because things like rights don't rest on species, they rest on intelligence, self awareness and all that. If sea slugs had human level intelligence, they'd deserve full and equal rights. However, they aren't which is why they don't get rights. If they even had the intelligence of a ******** human, they'd get rights. But an early fetus isn't even that far along.

Being able to feel pain is not a human characteristic. Most every living organism can feel pain. Furthermore, not every born human can feel pain. Are they now less than human? And, as I'm curious, what are these other "human characteristics" you speak of?

Actually, by your logic, early stage fetuses and people with those types of disorders wouldn't be alive, so .

More seriously, being able to feel pain is one characteristic of being human that early fetuses don't have. Along with higher mental functions, sapience, self awareness, etc. Early stage fetuses lack all of these things. We don't grant rights to human beings, we grant rights to people. The only examples of a human being that lacks all of these traits are early stage fetuses and the totally braindead. Those aren't legally people either.

You do realize that I never said all scientists and doctors share my view of abortion. I said that virtually no doctor or scientist would ever argue that a ZEF at any stage isn't a human or alive, because it most certainly is.

I think we need to clarify terminology a little here. There's a difference between between being biologically human and being a human person, just like there's a difference between being a biological human being and being alive. A fetus is two of those three.

 

[Bei1052]

It doesn't discriminate against one subset of the population; it applies to all beings regardless of their species, or even if they're organic or not.

Except it does, seeing as how the issue of personhood is used to deny of subset of the population (The unborn) the same rights and privileges afforded to another subset of the population (The born). This is a stipulation applied nowhere else to nothing else. And if you believe it is, then I urge you to find it and show me. It wasn't that hard to understand, and I feel that the only reason you didn't get it the first time is because you didn't want to get it.

An organism is a person when it is conscious, self-aware, and capable of feeling pain.

...I guess you forgot about corporations :'(

But, I digress. So instead of simplifying the issue, you made it even more complex. That's just great. Of course, it's not totally unexpected.

*shrugs*

Have it your way, then. So are those who are born with anencephaly, are in a vegetative state or suffer from extreme paralysis no longer people, since they all lack some form of your preset criteria for personhood? Obviously, they must not be. And this is even without getting into questions such as "How do you know you're self aware" and the like.

If you seriously want to understand these issues, read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or something. Just because it's hard doesn't mean you can dismiss it as philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

Yeah... That's a dismissal if I ever did hear one. See. Funny thing. I totally understand philosophy and I "seriously understand these issues". Shocking? Definitely. You know the totally brilliant thing about philosophical arguments? The only way they can be "wrong" is to admit that they're wrong, and since you'll never admit that your arguments are wrong, then you'll never be wrong. It's a lovely set-up, really.

Yes, the issue of personhood is philosophical mumbo-jumbo. I don't dismiss it because it's "hard", I dismiss it because not only does it not mean anything, the only time it's ever brought up is to prevent a subset of the population from enjoying the same rights and privileges as another subset of the population (Does no one remember the "Person's case"?). Yes, the only reason.

 

[Bei1052]

Because things like rights don't rest on species, they rest on intelligence, self awareness and all that. If sea slugs had human level intelligence, they'd deserve full and equal rights. However, they aren't which is why they don't get rights. If they even had the intelligence of a ******** human, they'd get rights. But an early fetus isn't even that far along.

No. Just no. Rights are not prescribed on intelligence or self-awareness. I mean, take dolphins for example. Your average adult dolphin is smarter than your average newborn, yet some cultures eat dolphins. Should we also be allowed to eat babies because they're, for all intents and purposes, dumber than some dolphins? Yes, that's a ridiculous example, but it highlights the whole "prescribing rights based on intelligence" line you used.

Actually, by your logic, early stage fetuses and people with those types of disorders wouldn't be alive, so .

I think you should try again.

More seriously, being able to feel pain is one characteristic of being human that early fetuses don't have.

I believe I said this earlier, but being able to feel pain is not a characteristic of being human.

Along with higher mental functions, sapience, self awareness, etc. Early stage fetuses lack all of these things.

Not only are all of these not human characteristics (They apply to many other living things), but I do hope you realize that you're going to have to define what constitutes "higher mental functions", "sapience" and "self-awareness".

We don't grant rights to human beings, we grant rights to people. The only examples of a human being that lacks all of these traits are early stage fetuses and the totally braindead. Those aren't legally people either.

Ummm... I could of sworn they were called "human rights", not "people rights". My mistake.

I think we need to clarify terminology a little here. There's a difference between between being biologically human and being a human person, just like there's a difference between being a biological human being and being alive. A fetus is two of those three.

*mentions something about you not being able to define a person and presupposing an answer to the very question you can't define nor answer*

Maybe there's a bit of disconnect here, but do you see the problem with constantly asserting what a ZEF is not while refusing to define what the thing it supposedly is not, is? If not, then you should, because it's a big problem. A very big problem.

 

[Miles Teg]

No. Just no. Rights are not prescribed on intelligence or self-awareness. I mean, take dolphins for example. Your average adult dolphin is smarter than your average newborn, yet some cultures eat dolphins. Should we also be allowed to eat babies because they're, for all intents and purposes, dumber than some dolphins? Yes, that's a ridiculous example, but it highlights the whole "prescribing rights based on intelligence" line you used.

I'm against the eating of dolphins and other self aware animals, so no dice there pal.

I believe I said this earlier, but being able to feel pain is not a characteristic of being human.

Incorrect Inferrence. Feeling pain is one of the characteristics of a human, even if it's not unique. An early stage fetus lacks this human quality.

Not only are all of these not human characteristics (They apply to many other living things), but I do hope you realize that you're going to have to define what constitutes "higher mental functions", "sapience" and "self-awareness".

Ummm... I could of sworn they were called "human rights", not "people rights". My mistake.

Are you aware of any animals that is self aware, sapient, conscious, and all of that. Animals fail at various tests, so human's are the only ones that count as people. So the only problem we've got is that the lawyers chose a snappy name.

*mentions something about you not being able to define a person and presupposing an answer to the very question you can't define nor answer*

*mentions once again that there are clear examples of non-humans, like early stage fetuses*

Maybe there's a bit of disconnect here, but do you see the problem with constantly asserting what a ZEF is not while refusing to define what the thing it supposedly is not, is? If not, then you should, because it's a big problem. A very big problem.

Can you tell me where my neck ends and my head begins? Good luck with that, but I'm not going to say that my eyebrows are on my neck while I wait.

 

[Bill3000]

Except it does, seeing as how the issue of personhood is used to deny of subset of the population (The unborn) the same rights and privileges afforded to another subset of the population (The born). This is a stipulation applied nowhere else to nothing else. And if you believe it is, then I urge you to find it and show me. It wasn't that hard to understand, and I feel that the only reason you didn't get it the first time is because you didn't want to get it.

Because the definition of personhood I gave gives rights to a select number of animal species (eight species sans humans) as well as hypothetical entities. No need for speciesism.

...I guess you forgot about corporations :'(

Corporations are organisms? It's a legal fiction.

Have it your way, then. So are those who are born with anencephaly, are in a vegetative state or suffer from extreme paralysis no longer people, since they all lack some form of your preset criteria for personhood? Obviously, they must not be. And this is even without getting into questions such as "How do you know you're self aware" and the like.

Those born with anencephaly or otherwise lack brains aren't persons, yes. As for those in a vegetative state, depends if it's permanent or not; and besides, if it was a person beforehand, he or she would have rights over the . The brain-dead are already legally dead. As for those who suffer from extreme paralysis, yes; personhood is an inclusive category. A person who can't feel pain is still self-aware. Being aware of pain is a subset of being self-aware.

Yes, there's empirical problems such as finding when a person . That's why these issues are complicated. It's not

Yes, the issue of personhood is philosophical mumbo-jumbo. I don't dismiss it because it's "hard", I dismiss it because not only does it not mean anything, the only time it's ever brought up is to prevent a subset of the population from enjoying the same rights and privileges as another subset of the population (Does no one remember the "Person's case"?). Yes, the only reason.

Complete nonsense. It's brought up in animal rights. It's brought up in exploring philosophical issues of personal identity. I don't exactly think that John Locke was talking about preventing a subset of the population from enjoying rights and privileges of others. If you "understood philosophy" you wouldn't be dismissing something as critically important in the field as personhood

No. Just no. Rights are not prescribed on intelligence or self-awareness. I mean, take dolphins for example. Your average adult dolphin is smarter than your average newborn, yet some cultures eat dolphins. Should we also be allowed to eat babies because they're, for all intents and purposes, dumber than some dolphins? Yes, that's a ridiculous example, but it highlights the whole "prescribing rights based on intelligence" line you used.

If you "understood philosophy" you would know something as basic as not deriving an ought from an is. I mean the simplest answer here is say that dolphins ought to be recognized as persons and ban dolphin eating!

 

[Bei1052]

I'm against the eating of dolphins and other self aware animals, so no dice there pal.

You... You do realize that you didn't answer my question, don't you?

Incorrect Inferrence. Feeling pain is one of the characteristics of a human, even if it's not unique. An early stage fetus lacks this human quality.

My inference is just fine. No matter what way you dress it up, feeling pain isn't a characteristic of humans. The ability to feel pain doesn't make one human, nor is it an integral quality to humanity. It's something humans can feel, much like many organisms.

...And, yet again, I find myself asking you this question, but are those who do not feel pain (Which is, within itself, entirely subjectively) less than a "person"? I don't know how many times I've asked this question, but your refusal to answer it is getting on my nerves.

Are you aware of any animals that is self aware, sapient, conscious, and all of that. Animals fail at various tests, so human's are the only ones that count as people. So the only problem we've got is that the lawyers chose a snappy name.

Can't say I do. Of course, if humans pass all of those tests, it's because those tests are constructed by humans and in a way which are biased towards humans. Humans, themselves, have no idea if they're any of those things.

*mentions once again that there are clear examples of non-humans, like early stage fetuses*

*re-re-mentions something about ZEF's always being human*

Can you tell me where my neck ends and my head begins?

Indeed, I can.

Good luck with that, but I'm not going to say that my eyebrows are on my neck while I wait.

Your eyebrows are far above your cervical vertebrae (sp?).

 

[Bill3000]

You... You do realize that you didn't answer my question, don't you?

That's because what you said was stupid. You said that dolphins don't have rights because some cultures eat them. Dolphins having rights or not has nothing to do with whether or not a certain culture does something with them. Rights are normative; you can't derive an ought from an is.

*re-re-mentions something about ZEF's always being human*

Yeah, uh, if you're going to be this willfully obtuse to completely ignore what you know he means, then you should just stop posting. Go back to your power rangers, kid.

This isn't an abortion thread anyway, so this stops now.

 

[crabapple]

This thread was intresting before it was spammed with the usual anti-abortion claptrap.

Anyway the problem with humanism is doesnt factor in the natrual world, and it is also a failure when it comes to stopping overpopulation, Sure its generally good but not good enough

 

[Bei1052]

Because the definition of personhood I gave gives rights to a select number of animal species (eight species sans humans) as well as hypothetical entities. No need for speciesism.

...Because what you wrote out the first, and second time, had nothing to do with what I wrote out not even attempted to address what I wrote out. So, I'm thinking to myself, why bother?

Corporations are organisms? It's a legal fiction.

Nope. Corporations aren't organisms. But, for some odd reason they're persons. It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Those born with anencephaly or otherwise lack brains aren't persons, yes. As for those in a vegetative state, depends if it's permanent or not; and besides, if it was a person beforehand, he or she would have rights over the . The brain-dead are already legally dead. As for those who suffer from extreme paralysis, yes; personhood is an inclusive category. A person who can't feel pain is still self-aware. Being aware of pain is a subset of being self-aware.

Of course, in every single one of those instances the person (Hah!) in question will be deemed a person. So, this inevitably leads to the question of "What is a person?"-- A question, mind you, I've asked no less than a bajillion times but have gotten no answer for.

Yes, there's empirical problems such as finding when a person . That's why these issues are complicated. It's not.

Considering the fact that there's nothing to test, it's impossible to find out "what a person is".

Complete nonsense. It's brought up in animal rights. It's brought up in exploring philosophical issues of personal identity.

No, it's not "complete nonsense". Are you even reading what I'm bothering to write out?

I don't exactly think that John Locke was talking about preventing a subset of the population from enjoying rights and privileges of others.

...You're joking, aren't you? You do realize that John Locke was a big proponent of natural rights and came up with the whole "Life, liberty and property" line, don't you? Because, I don't think you do. Locke believed that man was created by God and endowed with certain rights, the right to life being paramount of those rights. If he were alive today, there's no doubt in my mind he would be an opponent of abortion, for abortion sacrifices the life of one for the "liberty" of another, something he would have found to be appalling.

If you "understood philosophy" you wouldn't be dismissing something as critically important in the field as personhood

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but if you believe that the issue of personhood is "critically important to the field of philosophy", then I think it's safe to say that you don't understand philosophy as well as you think you do. The notion that only "persons" are entitled to equal protection, treatment and status runs contrary to pretty much the entire Enlightenment movement-- Of which we pretty much owe the world's various constitutions and declarations of today-- Where the prevailing attitude was that that all humans had certain rights which could not be infringed upon by the government nor by anyone else.

If you "understood philosophy" you would know something as basic as not deriving an ought from an is. I mean the simplest answer here is say that dolphins ought to be recognized as persons and ban dolphin eating!

Are you sure? Because, you know, I figured the simplest answer was to say that newborns aren't persons and allow them to be eaten. After all, if we're going to bestow personhood unto an animal which is, at some point in time, smarter than a human, then we're also going to have to bestow personhood unto every animal which is smarter than some human at some point in time (Slippery slopes and all of that). And since it would be too complicated trying to figure out what animal can or cannot be eaten, I just figured we'd say all newborn humans should be allowed to be eaten the same way we eat animals.

 

[Bei1052]

That's because what you said was stupid. You said that dolphins don't have rights because some cultures eat them. Dolphins having rights or not has nothing to do with whether or not a certain culture does something with them. Rights are normative; you can't derive an ought from an is.

I double-triple-quintuple dare you to find where I said that dolphins don't have rights because some cultures eat them. But, as you can see, you won't find it, because I typed no such thing out. Blatantly misrepresenting what people said = Bad.

Yeah, uh, if you're going to be this willfully obtuse to completely ignore what you know he means, then you should just stop posting.

It's not my fault if you want to misuse terms and then later backtrack.

Go back to your power rangers, kid.

But there's no new episode this week. And I've seen all the episodes I care to see.

...And I like how you actually took the time to check me out on the intrawebz lol. I feel so loved =D

This isn't an abortion thread anyway, so this stops now.

Okie dokies by me

 

[Dragonlord]

Anyway the problem with humanism is doesnt factor in the natrual world, and it is also a failure when it comes to stopping overpopulation, Sure its generally good but not good enough

Could you clarify what you mean? Both criticisms aren't clear to me from the manifesto - both science and ecology are stressed in the manifesto, also birth control.

Having read the manifesto above, I find myself in near-total agreement ... I could nitpick on a couple of wordings, but it's as close to my own philosophy as makes no difference.

As to the whole abortion issue - I wish some of you could stop making any thread in which the word is mentioned into another abortion debate! Why don't you keep to the appropriate threads?
I was going to give my own opinion on the topic, but I'll follow my own advice and seek out the right thread..

Edit: x-post. I see you've agreed to stop the debate on abortion here. Good.

 

[Munch]

Humanism sounds a lot like common sense to me. If not in name, I'm sure society will continue to move in that direction.

 

[Kozmos]

Humanism is sooo 20th century. Transhumanism is where it's at now.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, I read the Humanist Manifesto II, and it made a lot of sense, for those who don't want to read the whole thing, here is a condensed version
I think it is a brilliant document

I remember reading about humanism a few years ago, and having enough differences with it such that I wouldn't call myself a humanist. I'll have to think about whether I have specific disagreements with this document

Bei, nerves don't even START to develop until 10 weeks into the pregnancy, that's the earliest possible cutoff imaginable, fetuses can't feel pain until about 6.5 months into pregnancy I personally would put the cutoff at 5-6 months

I am not confident that they 'cannot feel pain' before 6.5 months. I am entirely certain that they cannot feel pain (and have no perception of pain, or perception) before 22 weeks. But the point at which 'they' 'perceive' 'pain' is unknown to me. In order for them to feel pain, there would need to be a person & a pain stimulus interpreted as pain.


And while I agree with the sentiment "human life begins at conception", I fail to see how that's different from the statement "human life begins when a gut stem cell divides". Yes, the cell is alive, distinct, and human. But it's moral value at that point is negligible.

And regarding 'getting the baby's opinion' regarding abortion: well, before a certain point there is no opinion. There is no thought.

 

[Phlegmak]

how is it to dreamy? I agree it is overly optimistic, but dreamy?

These parts:

TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity. It would not exclude pride in national origins and accomplishments nor the handling of regional problems on a regional basis. Human progress, however, can no longer be achieved by focusing on one section of the world, Western or Eastern, developed or underdeveloped. For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other. Each person's future is in some way linked to all. We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community, at the same time recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.

As long as religion and racial divisions exist, nations will exist. In other words, nations will always exist. Not just racial and religious, but all other kinds of divisions. Language, ideological differences, etcetera. Also, dictators don't willingly give up power for the sake of the people. So if you got a dictatorship, you got a nation.

THIRTEENTH: This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented uses.

If you've wasted enough of your life on this forum like I have, you will have seen plenty of American citizens who think war is a great means to accomplish goals. Also, there are plenty users on this forum that support tyrants and oppression.

FOURTEENTH: The world community must engage in cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly depleting resources. The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem. Ecological damage, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. The cultivation and conservation of nature is a moral value; we should perceive ourselves as integral to the sources of our being in nature. We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human. Exploitation of natural resources, uncurbed by social conscience, must end.

Now that's just plain crazy. It's not going to happen. Cooperation for limited resources is crazy talk. Nations fight to take resources for themselves. On the individual level, people exploit resources for their own benefit. This also seems like the Prisoner's Dilemma. To put it simply, if everyone cooperated, then everyone gets a small benefit. If one guy decides to not cooperate, he can get a great benefit for himself and everyone else is hurt. I think I got it right.

John Bolton is basically the human incarnation of every generic Hollywood movie villain. You all know his stance on the UN. He also said, "Only one nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons." Imagine guys like him cooperating for limited resources. Nope. Not gonna happen. (Cue the morons who will defend John Bolton with endless nitpicking.)

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I liked the list of principles up until point 12, at which point I started really liking them. There are a parts where I'm not keen on the langauge ('racial' and ethnic pride?), but this is basically an overview of my political philosophy. The only changes I could offer would be to add more specific points on a range of other topics, but then it wouldn't be a philosophy any more.

Oh and leave off the abortion stuff. In most of the developed world it's legality is hardly any more controversial than birth control. I realise that a document like this must necessarily devolve into an abortion debate in an American context, but there's so much more in this philosophy to discuss, and some of it is even relevant beyond America's borders.