For the sake of this thread I will be wearing the "rabid-atheist" hat in the vein of HG and STANG to argue in favour of the below.
1) The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically accepted and viable theory.
2) Follows from 1) that genus Homo sapien (sapien) is merely an evolved animal.
3)To qualify for "personhood" an entity needs to exhibit most of the following:
3.1)Minimum intelligence: Below IQ 40 individuals might not be persons; below IQ 20 they are definitely not persons.
3.2)Self-awareness
3.3)Self-control: Because a person understands cause and effect, he or she can effectively work toward fulfilling freely-selected goals.
3.4)A Sense of time: Persons can allocate their time toward purposes; non-persons 'live' completely in the present moment, like other animals.
3.5)A Sense of futurity: Persons are concerned about their futures; persons lay plans and carry them out; they build their futures.
3.6)A Sense of the past: Persons have memories of their pasts; they can recall facts at will; they honor the past.
3.7)The Capacity to relate to others: Persons are social animals; they form bonds with others, both intimate and collective.
3.8)Concern for others: Persons always reach out to others; non-persons draw into themselves, even pathologically.
3.9) Communication: Persons communicate with other persons; if they become completely cut off, they become sub-personal.
3.10) Control of existence: Persons take responsibility for their lives; those who do not guide their own behavior are sub-personal.
3.11) Curiosity: Persons naturally want to know. If they lose this desire to know, they are less human.
3.13) Balance of rationality and feeling: Persons have both reason and emotion; one who is distorted either way is not whole.
3.14) Idiosyncrasy: All persons are different from one another; the less individuality, the less personhood.
4) Any animal with 3) is considerable for legal and moral protection.
5) Any animal without 3) is not legaly or morally considerable.
6) New-born infants do not possess the requirements of 3) and are therefore non-persons.
7) The mentally insane, senile and catatonic that do not possess the requirements of 3) are therefore non-persons.
8) Infanticide and Euthanasia of non-persons is morally permissible.
Originally posted by HalitoseYour "2" may well follow from your "1", but the leap from 1-2 to 3-8 is utterly amazing. It seems clear that 1-2 were tacked on the beginning simply to get people in a reactionary mood.
For the sake of this thread I will be wearing the "rabid-atheist" hat in the vein of HG and STANG to argue in favour of the below.
1) The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically accepted and viable theory.
2) Follows from 1) that genus Homo sapien (sapien) is merely an evolved animal.
3)To qualify for "personhood" an entity needs to exhibit most ...[text shortened]... re therefore non-persons.
8) Infanticide and Euthanasia of non-persons is morally permissible.
Originally posted by echeceroMy criteria for "personhood" are based loosely on:
Your "2" may well follow from your "1", but the leap from 1-2 to 3-8 is utterly amazing. It seems clear that 1-2 were tacked on the beginning simply to get people in a reactionary mood.
1.Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics by Joseph Fletcher
(Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1979)
2.The Foundations of Bioethics by H. Tristram Engelhardt, , Jr.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) p. 107, 108.
If you differ with my criteria, please, knock yourself out.
Originally posted by HalitoseEven if I agreed with points 1-7 fully, it is the jump to point 8 which I have a problem with. You have not said why it is morally or legally permissable to carry out infanticide or euthanasia. Just because it is not legally or morally considerable does not mean you have to kill it.
For the sake of this thread I will be wearing the "rabid-atheist" hat in the vein of HG and STANG to argue in favour of the below.
1) The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically accepted and viable theory.
2) Follows from 1) that genus Homo sapien (sapien) is merely an evolved animal.
3)To qualify for "personhood" an entity needs to exhibit most ...[text shortened]... re therefore non-persons.
8) Infanticide and Euthanasia of non-persons is morally permissible.
Your definitions also lack any sense of the potential for those characteristics to arise. New-borns will develop into people with '3'
Originally posted by echecero1) and 2) are to dispel all religious notions of the human race having some elitist status, hence the arbitrary concept of personhood.
Your "2" may well follow from your "1", but the leap from 1-2 to 3-8 is utterly amazing. It seems clear that 1-2 were tacked on the beginning simply to get people in a reactionary mood.
Originally posted by StarrmanI'm not saying that they should be killed, just like you shouldn't kill your pets or go on a shooting rampage in a zoo; my point is that infanticide and euthanasia under the given conditions has the same moral implications as shooting a dog and the legislation should be altered to follow suit.
Even if I agreed with points 1-7 fully, it is the jump to point 8 which I have a problem with. You have not said why it is morally or legally permissable to carry out infanticide or euthanasia. Just because it is not legally or morally considerable does not mean you have to kill it.
Your definitions also lack any sense of the potential for those characteristics to arise. New-borns will develop into people with '3'
Your definitions also lack any sense of the potential for those characteristics to arise.
Should potential for 3) be given as much right as a fully functioning and mature 3)? Definitely not for the unborn.
Originally posted by HalitoseOkay, but you mention new-born in your original statement, not un-born. If it is new-born you are discussing then yes potential is a consideration. If it is-unborn, then the potential is not yet present.
I'm not saying that they [b]should be killed, just like you shouldn't kill your pets or go on a shooting rampage in a zoo; my point is that infanticide and euthanasia under the given conditions has the same moral implications as shooting a dog and the legislation should be altered to follow suit.
Your definitions also lack any sense of the pote r 3) be given as much right as a fully functioning and mature 3)? Definitely not for the unborn.[/b]
Originally posted by StarrmanIf it is-unborn, then the potential is not yet present.
Okay, but you mention new-born in your original statement, not un-born. If it is new-born you are discussing then yes potential is a consideration. If it is-unborn, then the potential is not yet present.
How so?
Originally posted by Halitose1) The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically accepted and viable theory.
1) and 2) are to dispel all religious notions of the human race having some elitist status, hence the arbitrary concept of personhood.
2) Follows from 1) that genus Homo sapien (sapien) is merely an evolved animal.
I got that far. Honestly. 'Merely an evolved animal' is where you lost me. The rest of it, I'm sure, is a Craigian pantload. We have a consciousness that exceeds minimum specifications for life on this planet. It is not divinely granted, it is 'merely' a by-product of the evolution in the brain of our particular species.
It might have been the Big Cats, but it wasn't.
Originally posted by David CMy point exactly. Do you hold that humans are somehow the darlings of the universe? What prevents other animals who attain our consciousness to not be granted the same rights, or vice-versa for retarded humans? Why should they have some intrinsic value or right?
[b]1) The Theory of Evolution is a scientifically accepted and viable theory.
2) Follows from 1) that genus Homo sapien (sapien) is merely an evolved animal.
I got that far. Honestly. 'Merely an evolved animal' is where you lost me. The rest of it, I'm sure, is a Craigian pantload. We have a consciousness that exceeds minimum specifications for l ...[text shortened]... tion in the brain of our particular species.
It might have been the Big Cats, but it wasn't.[/b]
Originally posted by HalitoseIt's a good point, Mr. Rabid Atheist. A real noodle-scratcher.
My point exactly. Do you hold that humans are somehow the darlings of the universe? What prevents other animals who attain our consciousness to not be granted the same rights, or vice-versa for retarded humans? Why should they have some intrinsic value or right.
We are not the darlings of the universe. We are unique in terms of Earthlife. As far as I know, no other inhabitants of this planet have acheived our level of consciousness, although certain animals such as elephants, dolphins, and various primates display extraordinary mental capacities. I've even seen a demonstration of a raven that exhibited problem-solving capabilites.
None of this means it is morally permissible to kill mentally diminshed individuals who are born. It is called empathy, a function of our consciousness. Put in terms that a Jesusbot might understand (not that you are one, RA), "There, but for the Grace of God, go I".
Originally posted by StarrmanOne cannot discriminate against humans on where they get their sustainance or environment, but certainly on their personhood.
Because it's still tied to the motehr, depending on her for everthing. Surely you cannot consider it potent on anything until it is seperated.
Originally posted by David CDoes uniqueness entail intrinsic value?
It's a good point, Mr. Rabid Atheist. A real noodle-scratcher.
We are not the darlings of the universe. We are unique in terms of Earthlife. As far as I know, no other inhabitants of this planet have acheived our level of consciousness, although certain animals such as elephants, dolphins, and various primates display extraordinary mental capacities. I' ...[text shortened]... Jesusbot might understand (not that you are one, RA), "There, but for the Grace of God, go I".
Empathy perhaps, however, does that merit fundamental rights and protection? I have empathy for a mentally retarded chimpanzee, do they now somehow deserve fundamental rights?