I've decided to move the discussion about bbar's philosophy of personhood and rights (and hence, the impact it has on the abortion debate) to a new thread.
First, the relevant portions from the "George Bush Phones in Support for March of Life" thread:
Originally posted by bbarr
Why is it relevant when life begins, or when a fetus qualifies as a human? Sometimes it is permissible to kill things, and sometimes it is permissible to kill humans. If the anti-abortion flock wants to argue that abortion is impermissible because the fetus is a human being, then they need to justify the further claim that it is sufficient for having a right to life that one be a human being.
...
The point, which all the pro-choice folk in this thread have been frustratingly dancing around, is that the fetus is not a person in any morally relevant sense, despite the fact that it is biologically human. Suppose that an elderly human being suffers from a degenerative brain disease such that the elderly human being fails to manifest any mentality at all. Is it permissible to kill such a human being? I certainly think it is permissible, because that human being fails to qualify as a person in virtue of the fact that it fails to have any of the psychological capacities that are necessary for it to have interests. We don't think that rocks or plants are deserving of moral consideration, do we? Well, what is the difference between a human organism without a mind and a rock or a plant?
...
Any philosophical view according to which it is the possession of various psychological capacities that is necessary for having rights will have the resources sufficient to consistently maintain that abortion is permissible and killing the "old, the infirm and the mentally disabled" is impermissible.
...
I am fine with the claim that rights possession is intrinsic to personhood. I do not think, and nobody has ever provided a good reason for thinking that the property of being a human is either necessary or sufficient for being a person.
...
A person (as I use the term 'person'😉 is a creature with the capacity to suffer, the capacity for self-consciousness, and the capacity for at least rudimentary rationality. The possession of these three capacities is sufficient for the possession of rights. On such a view, the fetus doesn't qualify as a person until the third trimester.
...
I think that the possession of the psychological capacities mentioned above are jointly sufficient for rights possession.
Do you think it is sufficient for rights possession that a creature be a human organism?
Do you think it is necessary for rights possession that a creature be a human organism?
Now, according to bbarr, a "person" is a creature that has three "capacities":
1. The capacity to suffer
2. The capacity for self-consciousness
3. The capacity for (at least rudimentary) rationality
First question - I assume that by "capacity" you mean the possession of the actual ability (to suffer, to be self-conscious etc.) rather than just the potential to possess that ability. Correct?
Second question - I assume that it is the conjunction of the three capacities that is the sufficient condition for personhood (and hence, rights) rather than each capacity in itself. Correct?
Third question - I assume that by "rights" you mean the commonly understood human rights (life, liberty, equality under the law, pursuit of happiness). Correct?
Fourth question - Do you believe that personhood is a necessary condition for enjoying these rights?
I'll wait for bbarr's response before I proceed.
Its as simple as this: the pro choice folks are just trying to justify having all the wild sex they want without having to consider the consequences.
Anyway I think abortion should be legalised because you can't stop pregnant women from doing it themselves and possibly injurining or killing themselves allong the way.
Just becuase something is legal/illegal does not mean its right or wrong.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSorry, debates don't work this way. I'm not going to play Ivanhoe's game where debate consists merely of asking an overwhelming number of questions of an opponent. When we debate, I expect that both of us will make a good faith effort to answer the questions asked by our opponent.
I've decided to move the discussion about bbar's philosophy of personhood and rights (and hence, the impact it has on the abortion debate) to a new thread.
First, the relevant portions from the "George Bush Phones in Support for M ...[text shortened]... hese rights?
I'll wait for bbarr's response before I proceed.[/b]
Now, as you well know, I asked you two questions in the previous thread. If you want my answers, you have to give some of your own.
First, is being a human organism sufficient for having rights?
Second, is being a human necessary for having rights? If not, then it is possible that non-human creatures have rights. If some nonhuman creature has rights, is there a property or constellation of properties common to the human and nonhuman rights holders which explains why it is that both have rights? If so, what is that property?
Originally posted by bbarr
Sorry, debates don't work this way. I'm not going to play Ivanhoe's game where debate consists merely of asking an overwhelming number of questions of an opponent. When we debate, I expect that both of us will make a good faith effort to answer the questions asked by our opponent.
Very well. But I expect you to demonstrate etiquette later in holding off your rebuttals to my answers until you have answered my questions. I do not wish to play ivanhoe's game either.
Now, as you well know, I asked you two questions in the previous thread. If you want my answers, you have to give some of your own.
First, is being a human organism sufficient for having rights?
If, by organism, you mean "a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently"; by human organism you mean an organism that belongs to the species homo sapiens; then the answer is yes.
Second, is being a human necessary for having rights? If not, then it is possible that non-human creatures have rights. If some nonhuman creature has rights, is there a property or constellation of properties common to the human and nonhuman rights holders which explains why it is that both have rights? If so, what is that property?
If, by "rights", you mean human rights (life, liberty, equality); and by "having" you mean having in an intrinsic/Lockesian sense; then the answer is yes again. Certain classes of non-human creatures may have certain rights (e.g. non-food animals may have a right not to be treated cruelly), but whether these animal rights are intrinsic or extrinsic (i.e. awarded by humans), I don't have a clear view on. If I had to take a position, I would say they were extrinsic.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardNo, that's not true. I have a hard time seeing a fetus as more of a person or more important than a cow is, is all. I am perfectly aware that when I eat my Salisbury steak, a cow had to die for it. Likewise, I am perfectly aware that abortion kills fetuses. I can't listen to people who are against abortion seriously unless they are vegetarians. I see no special distinction between human and non human life. To me, morality is about happiness and suffering. Eating meat is far more wrong than most abortions.
Its as simple as this: the pro choice folks are just trying to justify having all the wild sex they want without having to consider the consequences.
Anyway I think abortion should be legalised because you can't stop pregnant ...[text shortened]... cuase something is legal/illegal does not mean its right or wrong.
EDIT - I have a hard time with the concept of "rights". What is a 'right'?
Dictionary.com offers these definitions which I think are relevant for the word 'right':
Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.
I don't think we're talking about law or tradition. I don't think anyone is 'due' anything by 'nature'. Well, what 'nature' are we talking about? Bbarr suggests some candidates for 'nature'.
The second definition is more useful to me. I think all beings are due (have a right to) infinite pleasure and zero suffering. Now, as that's not realistic, I look at situations as a whole, not what rights individuals have. Morality is based on the capacity to suffer or be happy and feel pleasure. Self conciousness and rationality are irrelevant.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes you are right I am also against eating meat.
No, that's not true. I have a hard time seeing a fetus as more of a person or more important than a cow is, is all. I am perfectly aware that when I eat my Salisbury steak, a cow had to die for it. Likewise, I am perfectly aware that abortion kills fetuses. I can't listen to people who are against abortion seriously unless they are vegetarians. ...[text shortened]... st abortions.
EDIT - I have a hard time with the concept of "rights". What is a 'right'?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI guess I meant good or bad then...😀
Dictionary.com offers these definitions which I think are relevant for the word 'right':
[b]Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.
I don't think we're talking about law or tradition. I don't think a ...[text shortened]... city to suffer or be happy and feel pleasure. Self conciousness and rationality are irrelevant.[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungA good argument in favour of eating meat could be that some animals have no function in nature except to reproduce and serve as food for other animals/humans.
By the way, I eat meat and am pro-choice. I feel mildly guilty about the former. I am ambivalent about how far into pregnancy abortion should be allowed.
btw I also eat meat myself but I do think its wrong, its just hard to quit, its like an addiction
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: " I'm not going to play Ivanhoe's game where debate consists merely of asking an overwhelming number of questions of an opponent. "
Sorry, debates don't work this way. I'm not going to play Ivanhoe's game where debate consists merely of asking an overwhelming number of questions of an opponent. When we debate, I expect that both of us will make a good faith effort to ...[text shortened]... hy it is that both have rights? If so, what is that property?
C'mon Bbarr, don't exagerate. You are just afraid of losing control over the direction the debate will take. You already have in mind were the discussion must end and so does everybody who knows your Neo-Kantian theories. You perfectly well know that you want to be able to control the debate and steering the discussion by using YOUR definitions and asking YOUR questions and thus proceding in the direction you want the discussion to go and to end. If you cannot control things and the discussion threatens to develop in the direction your opponent is aiming for, you start ignoring questions and dismissing certain answers, in short you start a power struggle and if you are loosing that battle you start pissing vinegar. I'm curious as to what will happen in this discussion. Good luck with the application of your form of game theory.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardThat's a crappy argument. "Function in nature"? What does that mean? What "function in nature" do humans serve?
A good argument in favour of eating meat could be that some animals have no function in nature except to reproduce and serve as food for other animals/humans.
btw I also eat meat myself but I do think its wrong, its just hard to quit, its like an addiction
Humans do not need to eat animals, and animals suffer. Therefore eating animals is generally wrong. Because of this, I am a little immoral because I place convenience and a little personal pleasure over the welfare of animals.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSure every animal has a function in nature. Take rats for instance. They their funtion is transmitting diseases and serving as food. Humans could be a disease destroying earth and reproducing themselves way to rapid. Then moving to other planets to destroy. (Only a theory).
That's a crappy argument. "Function in nature"? What does that mean? What "function in nature" do humans serve?
Humans do not need to eat animals, and animals suffer. Therefore eating animals is generally wrong. Because of this, I am a little immoral because I place convenience and a little personal pleasure over the welfare of animals.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardWhat do you mean by 'function'? The interrelation with other organisms? The way the organism helps other organisms to survive?
Sure every animal has a function in nature. Take rats for instance. They their funtion is transmitting diseases and serving as food. Humans could be a disease destroying earth and reproducing themselves way to rapid. Then moving to other planets to destroy. (Only a theory).