|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2009 : 09:06:50 [Permalink]
|
Well, the personal attachment means little. People feel mourning when their pet die or when their favourite set of china breaks...
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2009 : 10:07:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Main Entry: ostensive definitionFunction: noun
: a definition accomplished by exhibiting and characterizing the thing to be defined or by pointing out and characterizing the cases or instances to be covered
|
|
Giving examples of members of a set can never fully define a set unless you can list of every member of the set. Suppose I want to define real numbers - we have 1, 2, 0.5, sqrt(2), pi, which I could justify individually, but that's useless in the wider scheme of defining real numbers.
No matter how you choose to "frame" the debate, you will conclude that you are a person. (you have already admitted as much) So you must admit that you possess the minimum set of characteristics that allows one to be considered a person. (whatever that set may be, it isn't going to be the same for everyone)
It is clear that the oldest and most widely accepted concept of personhood (as it relates to a fetus) begins when a fetus is capable of independent movement. Most people would also say that a moving fetus that can respond to external stimuli also possesses the minimum set of characteristics to be a person. |
I mean an axiom in the sense of something that does not need to be proven. I did not admit I am person for sure, I think I am, but that statement needs justification. Could I justify it pretty quickly? Yes, but my inclusion (and that of other rational humans) does not affect the other beings included and need not be used as a starting point for discerning the other members of the set.
Again, what does the age of an idea or the amount of people who agree with it have to do with the validity of the idea? Nearly everyone agreed with the 200-year-old ideas of Newton before Einstein, lots of people agreed with slavery over its very long existence, etc. These need not have any bearing on anything.
edit: fixed quotes
|
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/19/2009 11:06:02 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2009 : 11:02:14 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli said:
Again, what does the age of an idea or the amount of people who agree with it have to do with the validity of the idea? Nearly everyone agreed with the 200-year-old ideas of Newton before Einstein, lots of people agreed with slavery over its very long existence, etc. These need not have any bearing on anything.
|
Reality often has little or nothing to do with the definitions we use. No argument there from me.
| I mean an axiom in the sense of something that does not need to be proven. |
Still conceptually distinct from an ostensive definition.
Personhood is not going to be one of those things that you can pin down exactly via calculation, deduction, or observation. Which is why I used the ostensive case rather than just listing a set of traits that you must have to be a person.
This does not mean that we must abandon logic or rational thinking though. Nor does it mean that we can not arrive at a philosophically and legally useful definition of "person".
Nearly everyone agreed with the 200-year-old ideas of Newton before Einstein, lots of people agreed with slavery over its very long existence, etc. These need not have any bearing on anything.
|
Historical context is important, it could be right or wrong, but examining the history lets you avoid retreading old arguments. If you were to have a debate about the merits and ethics of slavery, you certainly wouldn't want to ignore the history of that particular atrocity, would you?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2009 : 16:26:35 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli said:
Giving examples of members of a set can never fully define a set unless you can list of every member of the set. Suppose I want to define real numbers - we have 1, 2, 0.5, sqrt(2), pi, which I could justify individually, but that's useless in the wider scheme of defining real numbers.
|
But the way you reach a descriptive definition of real numbers is by identifying them. The way you would explain the concept of real numbers to another person would almost certainly include pointing out some real numbers to them.
You'd then build your case for what real numbers are, and then you'd be able to explain why 1 is included and the square root of -1 is not included.
At this point (if you don't get what I'm saying) I do not believe I can help you comprehend. You seem to be stuck on this, and I'm afraid I lack the requisite powers of communication to relay a point. We are simply going round and round, with you failing to understand.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/19/2009 16:28:24 |
|
|
|
WarfRat
New Member
49 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2009 : 17:09:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Historical context is important, it could be right or wrong, but examining the history lets you avoid retreading old arguments. If you were to have a debate about the merits and ethics of slavery, you certainly wouldn't want to ignore the history of that particular atrocity, would you?
|
Well, you can look at which forms a slavery would be acceptable and which would be unnacceptable. |
"I believe...that one benefits the workers...so much more by forcing through reforms which alleviate and strengthen their position, than by saying that only a revolution can help them." |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2009 : 09:00:10 [Permalink]
|
Simon wrote: | Well, the personal attachment means little. People feel mourning when their pet die or when their favourite set of china breaks... |
The personal attachment does have meaning if it is a trend and if the type of loss felt is generally that of mourning the death of a being opposed to feeling deep disappointment over the loss of a possibility or potential being. In looking at what women involved in support groups after having miscarriages say, it seems that earlier term miscarriages tend to be thought of as a loss of potential, while later term miscarriages are regarded more similarly to the loss of a newborn baby. There is a very large grey area here, and that is relevant to the “personhood” discussion. The point I was trying to make is that how we think of these definitions from personal experience and how we think of them as establishing a definition to base laws and social policy on are quite different. I'm definitely starting to think of my fetus as a person, but I still would strongly oppose laws which would give my fetus rights to life which are greater than my right to control my own health decisions regarding this pregnancy.
I don't think the china breaking is a fair comparison because the sadness people feel about lost objects is not generally considered “mourning.” Mourning is something we do for a lost being, although I would include pets absolutely.
I brought up earlier in this conversation that some people in both the general population and in academic discussions of personhood have introduced the idea of some animals being considered “persons.”
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2009 : 20:24:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Machi4velli said:
Giving examples of members of a set can never fully define a set unless you can list of every member of the set. Suppose I want to define real numbers - we have 1, 2, 0.5, sqrt(2), pi, which I could justify individually, but that's useless in the wider scheme of defining real numbers.
|
But the way you reach a descriptive definition of real numbers is by identifying them. The way you would explain the concept of real numbers to another person would almost certainly include pointing out some real numbers to them.
You'd then build your case for what real numbers are, and then you'd be able to explain why 1 is included and the square root of -1 is not included.
At this point (if you don't get what I'm saying) I do not believe I can help you comprehend. You seem to be stuck on this, and I'm afraid I lack the requisite powers of communication to relay a point. We are simply going round and round, with you failing to understand.
|
Actually I would not define the reals by identifying them, I would specify certain axioms from which the reals can be deduced (totally ordered field on which addition and multiplication applies where any finite subset has a least upper bound [I believe that's the current way of defining them]).
I do understand what you mean, but I don't it is the only way to go about defining the term. I did admit I may never find a suitable definition in this way somewhere a few pages back, but I do not agree that it is hopeless or a worthless pursuit. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2009 : 20:29:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Machi4velli wrote: | Suppose we are creating a new classification called "qwertyhood," which will include all beings who have a right not to be terminated by other qwertys. |
This would mean that any being who fits the definition of qwerty could lose that status by doing something or being in a situation which warrents other qwertys deciding to kill him or her. For instance, if a qwerty commits some act which is considered unacceptable behavior and the punishment is death, then by committing that that act the qwerty losing his or her qwerty status. Also, if a Qwerty got him or herself into a situation where killing him or her were the other way to save one hundred other Qwertys, again that Qwerty would lose their Qwerty status. |
Not sure violating another qwerty's right would necessarily mean you are out of the club, but I do think it should be possible to lose qwertyhood (e.g. brain death, etc). Some would include the death penalty for those who kill other qwertys, yes, but I don't think the concept is destroyed by a lack of it. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2009 : 02:23:06 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli said:
Actually I would not define the reals by identifying them, I would specify certain axioms from which the reals can be deduced (totally ordered field on which addition and multiplication applies where any finite subset has a least upper bound [I believe that's the current way of defining them]).
|
If English is not your primary language, then I apologize.
There are a number of definitions for axiom in this context that are appropriate. The definition you have stated is not one I even recognize, and appears to also suffer from some error of grammar.
An axiom can be defined, as I said, several ways for this debate. All of which would be appropriate, because of the similarity.
Kant would say that an axiom is an immediately certain synthetic a priori proposition. While I would argue against this particular assertion of epistemology (I'd say such a statement is, in essence, analytic rather than synthetic), the definition is appropriate here.
You could also define "axiom" as a proposition thought worthy on the basis of self evidence. Self evidently true = axiom.
There are a few other ways to describe an axiom, but they all boil down to this (epistemology aside): An axiom is a self evidently true statement.
/end basic vocabulary lesson #2
That aside, you seem to be saying that you want to list the qualities of a person and then use that list to determine who is a person. This is a shift in your position if I understand you, as you had previously stated you could somehow prove "x is not a person".
I am a fan of your new position on this, it is almost identical to my own. I just take it one pragmatic step further and recognize that you will probably never be able to create that list. Some concepts are not going to have a concrete definition.
But that does not render the definitions we do use meaningless, nor does it mean that the same meta rules do not apply. If I want to shift the definition of "life" to include a virus, I'm going to have to justify that inclusion.
Same for the definition of "person". Anyone who wants to change the current definition needs to justify it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2009 : 10:45:43 [Permalink]
|
Ah. I think I see the problem.
There is no reason to see an axiom as a self-evident statement or even a true one. They can be posited as mere starting points, their only "truth value" being a label for purposes of internal consistency evaluation.
There is no reason to see a current definition as enjoying a special status or immunity. If one views definitions as needing justifications than ANY definition needs justifying, including the status quo.
Seeing Dude's responses to people, which almost invariably boil down to "I can't say this any simpler; you must be too stupid to understand or too insane to try," I am beginning to agree with Dude on one thing though: it is clearly irrational to try to discuss this matter with him. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2009 : 11:33:56 [Permalink]
|
dglas said:
| There is no reason to see an axiom as a self-evident statement or even a true one. |
Then you don't understand what an axiom is.
Is it really necessary for me to tag on "within a given context" to the end of "self evidently true statement" when trying to pass on the definition of axiom? Irony ftw!
| There is no reason to see a current definition as enjoying a special status or immunity. |
Good thing no one here is suggesting such a thing then, isn't it? Ohh... wait, I get it, you just wanted to set up a straw-man to piss on. Well, good job, nice straw-man. Now move along.
If one views definitions as needing justifications than ANY definition needs justifying, including the status quo.
|
Indeed. Induction is a real bitch. But its what we have, and it works fairly well.
| Seeing Dude's responses to people, which almost invariably boil down to "I can't say this any simpler; you must be too stupid to understand or too insane to try," I am beginning to agree with Dude on one thing though: it is clearly irrational to try to discuss this matter with him. |
Well, at least I don't live in Canadia. Bunch of artic dwelling self-stipulators up there....
If you perceive me admitting that I lack the requisite communication skill to relay some bit of information to another person, and you think I am insulting them... That says a lot more about you than me. Maybe YOU think the other people in the conversation are too stupid to understand, but that is just you projecting your own prejudice onto the discussion. Leave your personal bias out of it, don't try to overlay tone and non-verbal communication ques onto typewritten text. That is a recipe for failure every time.
What about my posting history here leads you to think I would bother with a veiled insult? If I think you are a fucking moron, I'm just going to tell you that you are a fucking moron. If I think you are incapable of comprehending, I'll just call you an idiot. If I think you are a dishonest, lying, straw-man creating piece of shit.... Kil will yell at me for my response to you.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2009 : 10:58:57 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli said:
Actually I would not define the reals by identifying them, I would specify certain axioms from which the reals can be deduced (totally ordered field on which addition and multiplication applies where any finite subset has a least upper bound [I believe that's the current way of defining them]).
|
I misspoke, I should have said I would specify criteria. In that case, listing examples is fully unnecessary.
That aside, you seem to be saying that you want to list the qualities of a person and then use that list to determine who is a person. This is a shift in your position if I understand you, as you had previously stated you could somehow prove "x is not a person".
I am a fan of your new position on this, it is almost identical to my own. I just take it one pragmatic step further and recognize that you will probably never be able to create that list. Some concepts are not going to have a concrete definition. |
It's not a shift, I said it may not work quite a while ago. I don't care if I build consensus on a concrete definition, but I may find a concrete definition that is difficult to refute consistently.
But that does not render the definitions we do use meaningless, nor does it mean that the same meta rules do not apply.
Same for the definition of "person". Anyone who wants to change the current definition needs to justify it. |
There is no justification for the current definition, why is it any more valid to posit that one than any other? |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2009 : 23:28:55 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli said:
| There is no justification for the current definition, why is it any more valid to posit that one than any other? |
Sure there is! What you mean to say is that there is no precise objective justification for the current usage of the word. And you'd be correct.
Why should a subjective concept have a precise objective definition?
But we are still just running in circles here. As much as I would like an objective definition for the word, one that you can use to draw a clear line between person and not-person, I don't think we'll ever get one.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2009 : 19:54:17 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli wrote: | Not sure violating another qwerty's right would necessarily mean you are out of the club, but I do think it should be possible to lose qwertyhood (e.g. brain death, etc). Some would include the death penalty for those who kill other qwertys, yes, but I don't think the concept is destroyed by a lack of it. |
I was trying to make a point with the examples, but I think I rather failed so I'll try again.
The death penalty punishment was only the first example of qwerty losing their qwerty status. The second example was if it becomes necessary to kill one or some qwerties in order to save a much larger number of qwerties, then those qwerties being sacrificed for the others have essentially lost their right to life and therefore lost their qwerty status. To be more specific, during wartime, qwerties who are in the line of fire, even if they are not the target, have lost their right to life and are thus no longer qwerties.
My point was to point out that if we go back to defining "person" we have to acknowledge that just being a person doesn't automatically give someone the right to life no matter what the circumstance. When we go to war, we decide it is okay to kill some innocent people for the sake of a great cause, but we don't stop thinking of those victims as people. If my husband goes brain dead but his body is still alive, I'll have the right to decide to end his life by taking him off life support. But I'll still consider him a person until he's totally dead. So how this relates to abortion is that even if we end up deciding that a fetus at some stage (for instance, viability around the 6th month of pregnancy) is a "person" it still doesn't necessarily give that fetus rights to life which supercede the mother's right to health.
Once again the whole debate over personhood is only the tip of the iceburg as it relates to the abortion debate. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Souter retires!
