Originally posted by JS357
However you define person, or human being, you must use scientific methods to determine what physical
objects in our reality match that definition.
And also our scientific findings can feed back into refining and altering definitions to better and more usefully
reflect the reality we live in.
I believe both of the above statements are tr ...[text shortened]... ey formulate their definitions. And their motivations greatly influence their definitions.
I may not have been clear in my meaning.
I am not talking about what tools people do use but which tools people should use when discussing these issues.
I was saying that these issues are not beyond the purview of science and in fact can only be reasonably addressed
by utilising the scientific tool-kit.
I am well aware that many people not only don't use scientific methodology for such issues but don't understand how
they could even if they wanted to.
However my argument is that it is the only means of objectively and rationally addressing these issues.
"A scientist writing a paper on some tribe, would be considered unobjective if he said that the society's definition of
person or human was "wrong" when that society used that definition to sanction slavery or genocide.
He sees it as wrong not scientifically, but culturally. His own society's definition may differ, that is all.
So it seems to me that definitions serve purposes that are not entirely served by science, and people have motivations
that lie outside those driving science, when they formulate their definitions."
If the tribe had a word that corresponded to something like our definition of human being but they arbitrarily counted themselves
as human but not their opponents who they were trying to enslave then its perfectly possible and objective to say that they
are wrong to claim that their opposition are not humans from an objective scientific viewpoint.
However...
What we are talking about here is not an external observer to a society documenting on their language and word meanings.
We are talking about people within a society have a discussion about a contentious issue and how they [should] go about
defining their terms for the purposes and in the context of the contentious issue.
I could for example define the word "person" in such a way that it including any individual living animal, or even life from of
any kind.
However this definition would be utterly useless for dealing and discussing the issues surrounding abortion.
It would be useless for legal purposes, for determining rights, because the same rights you give a person would now suddenly
be applicable to ants... Do we now have a UN council meeting to discuss genocide every time one ant colony tries to wipe out
another?
Do we hold murder trials every time you step on an ant, or swat a fly?
It's obviously absurd.
So the context for proposing definitions in discussions about abortion is that they actually have to have some meaning and
bearing on the issue of abortion.
If something that is defined as a 'person' gets certain rights and legal privileges then the definition of person needs to reflect
the intended use and outcomes.
You need to determine what physical objects in the universe fall under this definition.
And you need science to do that.