14 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloHmmph. 😉
A necessary structure is of course necessary, not sufficient.
I contend that your "necessary causal structure" is expediently naive and doesn't take into consideration the developmental process through which all "persons" go.
Edit: now that I think this over -- since the causal structure need only be necessary and not sufficient, I don't think it solves the dilemma, but rather compounds it.
14 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYes, you care more about pain than life, which strikes me as odd. Since there are times I’d bet even you would deal with pain to save your life, so since I doubt you would live by that standard to save your life, yet you are willing to deny life due to its absences seem 'strange' to me, because I believe it to be inconsistent with those that have endured a great deal of pain to survive horrid circumstances. Pain is a side issue, what is important is the life itself, if you are concern about that life’s pain, why not the life?
Yes, I think the conscious state of pain is morally relevant since I think we have at least prima facie obligations to minimize pain and suffering. That strikes you as strange?
Kelly
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou know I'll bet you a lot of money that after five years, everyone we have called dead, and everyone who was a zygote, that there are far more people running around alive that were zygote than corpses. Point being as you pointed out a corposes is just a stage in human development, one will lead to life, the other no so much unless you want to start talking about the spiritual nature of man.
A recently "dead" corpse has far more living tissue than a zygote. Why is it considered not alive but a zygote is?
Kelly
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloLets see, how about one is moving towards decay, the other towards a full grown person, you really feel the need to debate that, that is really an important point? If something is moving towards decay not life, we can call it dead or dying, if it is growing increasing naturally as humans do, I'd say we have a live one.
A necessary structure is of course necessary, not sufficient.
And that's not what I think no1 was saying. In some respects, it is a very interesting question how you in particular would define the death of a person. Since the zygote in your view is a person, it is clearly not sufficient for death that the person stop breathing, his heart stop ...[text shortened]... nditions that suffice for death of the person also outline necessary conditions for personhood.
Kelly
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI hate to break this to you and ivanhoe, but there is nothing all that interesting about life itself. By some pretty reasonable definitions of 'life', certain computer viruses would qualify. Life itself is not necessarily morally relevant, as opposed to pain and suffering.
Yes strange, pain and suffering bad, life who cares.
Kelly
14 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI see the question as relevant because it bears on the ridiculousness of the person-from-conception view. What does the zygote at conception have going for itself in terms of actual possession? Beyond the basic requirements for biological life, not much.
Lets see, how about one is moving towards decay, the other towards a full grown person, you really feel the need to debate that, that is really an important point? If something is moving towards decay not life, we can call it dead or dying, if it is growing increasing naturally as humans do, I'd say we have a live one.
Kelly
Edit: And your response doesn't address my question, which was what conditions are sufficient for death of the person?
14 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat do you mean? It's not surprising that these discussions often focus on necessary conditions because in order to make my point, it is enough to show that the young fetus lacks even one necessary condition for moral consideration. A formal criterion (which is not necessary for this discussion in my opinion) would outline necessary and sufficient conditions. IIRC, there was a thread not too long ago where lucifershammer, bbarr, I, and others (Nemesio too I think) participated in discussion more along those lines.
now that I think this over -- since the causal structure need only be necessary and not sufficient, I don't think it solves the dilemma, but rather compounds it.
14 Feb 07
The Uniform Definition of Death Act defines a dead human being as: ""An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead."
A zygote can't die according to this definition - it has neither respiratory or brain functions. So how can something be a human being if it is impossible for it to die under the definitions of how a human being dies?
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou view so life as cheap or not interesting, but to avoid pain, that you would work for?
I hate to break this to you and ivanhoe, but there is nothing all that interesting about life itself. By some pretty reasonable definitions of 'life', certain computer viruses would qualify. Life itself is not necessarily morally relevant, as opposed to pain and suffering.
Kelly
14 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo what, do we punish those without out much going for them?
I see the question as relevant because it bears on the ridiculousness of the person-from-conception view. What does the zygote at conception have going for itself in terms of actual possession? Beyond the basic requirements for biological life, not much.
Edit: And your response doesn't address my question, which was what conditions are sufficient for death of the person?
The person from conception isn't a view it is a fact, you don't move
to being a person if there wasn't a conception. Todate the reasons I have seen here to justify abortion are:
1. It isn't a baby
2. Do it before the pain
3. It doesn't have much going on for it.
Powerful stuff, makes me wonder why we outlaw murder if they are not killing babies, it is done without pain, and the people killed have not much going on for them?
Kelly
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThe point here is that life is not sufficient for moral consideration. Germs are alive, but that doesn't and shouldn't make you think twice about killing them with hand soap or mouthwash. Flowers are living things and that doesn't stop people from picking them. So life itself is not sufficient. Biological life isn't even a necessary condition, either (consider if we could instantiate some person's mentality into silicon technology or something along those lines).
You view so life as cheap or not interesting, but to avoid pain, that you would work for?
Kelly