personhood

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 2849
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: personhood

Post by commonsense »

Atla wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:51 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:14 pm I'm just slightly curious why you seem to be such an exception, that's all.
Do you suppose that if I question somebody else's moral framework it has to imply that I don't believe in morality at all myself? Why would you think that? It's nowhere near logical.
I don't care about such stupid diversions

I was wondering, what if a sociopath is religious and also not very bright? Maybe this way, they could remain pretty confused about the natural moral difference between them and most other people?
Is it even possible for a sociopath to be religious?

Aren’t sociopaths of above average intelligence?

Why would a sociopath even consider the morality of other people for purposes of comparison with his own?

For that matter, why would a sociopath ever have the insight to consider his own morality?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9558
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personhood

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:27 pm Maybe this way, they could remain pretty confused about the natural moral difference between them and most other people?
"Natural moral difference"? You mean, that they were amoral, and other people believed in an objective morality?

But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because it's only what you call "the religious" who have grounds for believing in an objective morality at all. For a secular person, there are no such grounds.
Atla
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: personhood

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:43 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:27 pm Maybe this way, they could remain pretty confused about the natural moral difference between them and most other people?
"Natural moral difference"? You mean, that they were amoral, and other people believed in an objective morality?
That's my point: you don't seem to understand that there is a natural morality that's inherent to Homo sapiens. Think of it as a mind function, mostly a bunch of feelings. This isn't about the objectivity or subjectivity of morality, that's another issue.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9323
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: personhood

Post by henry quirk »

Atla wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:17 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:00 pm If he ain't a sociopath then why is he always roleplaying one?

doesn't seem to me that he is
That's your problem, now shoo
shooin' a man out of his own thread?

not no, but hell no!

🖕

time to pony up some evidence: mannie, a sociopath? prove it
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: personhood

Post by uwot »

commonsense wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:38 pmIs it even possible for a sociopath to be religious?
Suppose you frame the question like this: Could a sociopath relate to a being that kills almost every living creature?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9323
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: personhood

Post by henry quirk »

Belinda wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:34 pm Arguments about what a naturally constitutes a person are academic. What matters in practice is who is to have rights .
who has (natural) rights? persons

it ain't academic at all
commonsense
Posts: 2849
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: personhood

Post by commonsense »

uwot wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:23 pm
commonsense wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:38 pmIs it even possible for a sociopath to be religious?
Suppose you frame the question like this: Could a sociopath relate to a being that kills almost every living creature?
First I’d have to ask whether a sociopath could relate to any being other than himself.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9558
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personhood

Post by Immanuel Can »

Atla wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:43 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:27 pm Maybe this way, they could remain pretty confused about the natural moral difference between them and most other people?
"Natural moral difference"? You mean, that they were amoral, and other people believed in an objective morality?
That's my point: you don't seem to understand that there is a natural morality that's inherent to Homo sapiens.
Of course I think there is a morality. But I can, because I'm a Theist. There's no explanation in secularism for why we should follow what secularists tell us they want us to follow. Nobody made them God, for sure.

But if you say it only comes from "nature," then what's our obligation to it? After all, violence also comes from nature...and I'm pretty sure you're not going to argue that we owe anybody to keep that going. Prostitution and war are two of the oldest phenomena in the history of the human race. Are you going to say that since "nature" teaches us to have war and prostitution, we have some kind of moral duty to keep those going too?

So "nature" will never be a grounds for morality, because it counts equally for things we rightly consider "immoral." It might as easily inclined us to believe in the inevitability of conflict as the inevitability of cooperation.
... mostly a bunch of feelings...
Wow. That's even more flimsy.

We have all kinds of "feelings" -- love, hatred, rage, empathy, envy, compassion, lust, avarice, generosity, selfishness...those are all "feelings," but sure as shootin' some of them ain't moral.

If that's all you've got, then you have nothing that can tell us which "feelings" or which "natural impulses" are moral.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2536
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: personhood

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:03 pm I read it when you first posted it and ignored it because it's just not a good argument.

I find it to be an excellent argument
Ok, well the rest of this thread somehow found a way to get worse than it already was, so I'll explain why I think this one is bad.

The general shape of the argument is that the guy pokes people in the brain, well technically I suppose he pokes them on the brain seeing as he does all this at the surface of that organ. He is able to make their arms and legs shake by doing that, but he is not able to make them will their leg to shake, thus he concludes that certain functions of the human being including will and higher reason happen outside the brain. Further evidence for this comes in the form of epileptics not having mathematical siezures, and therefore maths doesn't happen in the brain. And so he concludes that dualism is the answer to this conundrum.

The precise type of dualism in question isn't mentioned, so I will use a form of reasoning called Abductive Reason to conclude that he means plain oold Cartesian mind-body substance dualism. My reasons for that are as follows:
1. Cartesian dualism is the default, I would expect anyone who had a more subtle form of dualism in mind therefore to specify, while it not surprising to see that form referred to just as "dualism"
2. The argument presented lacks sophistication, it would be counter-intuitive to say the least for such an argument to be made on behalf of a sophisticated dualism.
3. It's reasonably likely that the person making it didn't know there were other types of dualism and just assumed the most famous one was the only one, that's actually quite normal, I was deeply annoyed when I found out I would have to write essays on multiple types myself, and more so when it turned out epiphenomenalism was on the list.
So that's fairly reasonable, I stand by it, but it's not great because abductive reasoning - where you just pick up the information you have available and pick the likeliest looking conclusion - isn't very strong even when it's done really well by a cunning maestro of the logal arts such as my good self.

The abductive reasoning in your dude's piece though, is not the work of a total sexy God of Logic such as my good self though. At best it is passable evidence that there isn't some specific little nodule in the brain that has been set aside by evolution specifically for the purpose of calculus, and I gotta say, it would be super weird if there were such a basic object for such a thing, I've never heard of any materialists arguing that there is.

Your man there has not in any way argued that he has tested all the complex ways in which the brain parcels out tasks to its many regions, in fact that article offers no suggestion that he has even considered it. But that's what neuroscientists, and Dan Dennett and people such as those guys believe is happening there, and they have lots of expiremtnal data of their own to show at least some of that stuff to be at least plausible.

So added to the general weakness inherent to all abductive arguments, we must say that he has gone much further, in essence he has failed in that Sherlock Holmes test for these things ("Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth") by failing to eliminate what many people would consider a much more reaslistic answer than the one he opted for. And we may as well throw in Occam for good measure and say that he has added entities where none are necessarily required to explain his findings.


FYI, I'm not a hard materialist myself. I don't care about the subject very much because I think that much like arguments about free-will the issue is purely conceptual and not worth getting heated up about, but the arguments for predicate-dualism are quite sound in my view. Some part of that may just be because Fodor is an entertaining writer and Dennett is an irritating twat though, so maybe allow for some bias.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2536
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: personhood

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:56 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:31 pm So long as you keep painting me as an amoralist because you suppose that if morality isn't 'real' in whatever sense you think it is
I'm asking you in what sense you believe it's "real"? You won't come up with anything any sensible person can believe.
I've answered that. I don't give a fuck whether you think any sensible person could agree with me, your opinion is merely that of a monomaniacal dogmatic zealot, you aren't a sensible person. This conversation has bored me and it is over.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9558
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personhood

Post by Immanuel Can »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:57 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:56 pm You won't come up with anything any sensible person can believe.
I've answered that.
Yeah. But essentially your answer was, "Some people believe X, for now, and that makes it morality, and as 'real' as it needs to be." One would have to try very hard to come up with a less plausible answer, or one less fraught with problems in application.

In other words, that's just "a boat that won't float."

I was hoping you actually had a better answer.
Atla
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: personhood

Post by Atla »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:03 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:43 pm
"Natural moral difference"? You mean, that they were amoral, and other people believed in an objective morality?
That's my point: you don't seem to understand that there is a natural morality that's inherent to Homo sapiens.
Of course I think there is a morality. But I can, because I'm a Theist. There's no explanation in secularism for why we should follow what secularists tell us they want us to follow. Nobody made them God, for sure.

But if you say it only comes from "nature," then what's our obligation to it? After all, violence also comes from nature...and I'm pretty sure you're not going to argue that we owe anybody to keep that going. Prostitution and war are two of the oldest phenomena in the history of the human race. Are you going to say that since "nature" teaches us to have war and prostitution, we have some kind of moral duty to keep those going too?

So "nature" will never be a grounds for morality, because it counts equally for things we rightly consider "immoral." It might as easily inclined us to believe in the inevitability of conflict as the inevitability of cooperation.
... mostly a bunch of feelings...
Wow. That's even more flimsy.

We have all kinds of "feelings" -- love, hatred, rage, empathy, envy, compassion, lust, avarice, generosity, selfishness...those are all "feelings," but sure as shootin' some of them ain't moral.

If that's all you've got, then you have nothing that can tell us which "feelings" or which "natural impulses" are moral.
Yeah you seem to have no idea that there is an innate moral sense in most people.
Atla
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: personhood

Post by Atla »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:22 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:17 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:00 pm If he ain't a sociopath then why is he always roleplaying one?

doesn't seem to me that he is
That's your problem, now shoo
shooin' a man out of his own thread?

not no, but hell no!

🖕

time to pony up some evidence: mannie, a sociopath? prove it
not the thread, just play with the others
I don't really care about anything you have to say sorry
Belinda
Posts: 4307
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: personhood

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:43 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:27 pm Maybe this way, they could remain pretty confused about the natural moral difference between them and most other people?
"Natural moral difference"? You mean, that they were amoral, and other people believed in an objective morality?

But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because it's only what you call "the religious" who have grounds for believing in an objective morality at all. For a secular person, there are no such grounds.
When Immanuel Can says "grounds for believing" he means supernatural grounds for his belief. Religious people believe in a supernatural origin and author , Jahweh, Allah, or God. But people who believe nature is the origin of the good are not usually held to be religious people as they don't believe in a supernatural order of existence.

When nature is its origin, and we want the good, we have to look for it and we have to make the good. In the case of non-believers good has to be won and is existential not essential.

Immanuel Can's posts illustrate how people who believe in a supernatural order of existence sometimes, as does IC, also believe the Almighty hears them, approves of them, and supports them.They idolise their own idea, their holy book, or some holy prophet.
Skepdick
Posts: 5222
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: personhood

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:37 am Religious people believe in a supernatural origin and author , Jahweh, Allah, or God. But people who believe nature is the origin of the good are not usually held to be religious people as they don't believe in a supernatural order of existence.
Structurally speaking theists and FlashDangerpants (who labels himself a moral skeptic, and denies the supernatural) hold exactly the same view with respect to the origin of morality.

What FlashDangerpants calls the "non-real" is located somewhere other than reality.
What the religous call "supernatural" is located somewhere other than nature.

In so far as "nature" and "reality" mean exactly the same thing, the locations of religious and skeptical morality are exactly the same.

But for the sake of Philosophy it is absolutely forbidden to agree.
Post Reply