personhood

[henry quirk]

Is there anyone here who is implying or claiming that there cannot be a secular personhood? Or would you agree that there cannot be personhood unless God exists.

as I see it: again, there are three broad categories folks fit into...

the zen folks who say self (therefore personhood) is an illusion

the bestowers who say personhood is a status to be conferred

team soul who say personhood is natural, innate, and real (and, yes, God is the mastermind behind it all)

me: as a player for team soul, say the only personhood worth havin' is natural, innate, and real...the zen take is nonsensical to me, and the bestowed version is a nasty gruel for a mighty appetite (unsatisfying & unsustaining)

[henry quirk]

Would it be fair to say that all it takes to be recognized as a person is to have a human form and consciousness?

it's a start, a first step...wholly accurate but not informative

we all say, in one way or another I know it when I see it but we never try to say exactly what it is we know

mebbe, bottomline, we can't

don't mean we can't have fun tryin'

[uwot]

as I see it: again, there are three broad categories folks fit into...

You've missed (at least) one out, and I'm surprised at you. There are those of us who really don't give a shit what others think about our 'personhood' status.

[henry quirk]

mebbe the better way to say is is persons are free wills

I think that's something very close to the truth. But it also means that nobody who believes in a Deterministic worldview, such as a Materialist, would have any grounds for their nagging intuition that personhood is a real thing. However, neither of us is a Determinist, so that does not touch us personally.

Animals, for all the choices some of them can make, are not determiners of their own life trajectories or embarkers on existential projects, or seekers of meaning. They have no awareness at all of that. They only invest themselves in what their instincts allow. Human beings, on the other hand, seem uniquely talented at putting off, modifying, resisting or even refusing the mere dictates of instinct, when it suits them to do so, in aid of participating in something they consider to have special meaning. That's certainly more freedom than animals ever have.

Personhood seems to be related to the idea that one's choices of how one's own life plays out should be respected...even if those choices are only rudimentary ones, or sometimes if they're even wrong ones.

That certainly does seem closely related to the issue of free will.

I could dicker a bit with you about certain non-humans mebbe bein' persons, alien persons to be sure, but persons, but I'll leave that open for later in the thread (mebbe other folks will get suckered in and we can a have free-for-all)

overall:

[henry quirk]

Human beings... seem uniquely talented at putting off, modifying, resisting or even refusing the mere dictates of instinct, when it suits them to do so, in aid of participating in something they consider to have special meaning.

Indeed Mr Can, how clever we are to slice off bits of our genitals, refrain from eating meat on Fridays, not fuck anyone we haven't promised to be faithful to or believe that one human sacrifice can atone for all our naughtiness.

That's certainly more freedom than animals ever have.

Mr Can, your argument is that more rules make us more free. George Orwell wrote 1984 about people like you.

interestin' how you left off...

Personhood seems to be related to the idea that one's choices of how one's own life plays out should be respected...even if those choices are only rudimentary ones, or sometimes if they're even wrong ones.

[henry quirk]

as I see it: again, there are three broad categories folks fit into...

You've missed (at least) one out, and I'm surprised at you. There are those of us who really don't give a shit what others think about our 'personhood' status.

okay

[uwot]

interestin' how you left off...

Well henry, if you are really interested, I will happily tell you why I did so.

[henry quirk]

interestin' how you left off...

Well henry, if you are really interested, I will happily tell you why I did so.

yeah, I'm not

[Belinda]

Is there anyone here who is implying or claiming that there cannot be a secular personhood? Or would you agree that there cannot be personhood unless God exists.

as I see it: again, there are three broad categories folks fit into...

the zen folks who say self (therefore personhood) is an illusion

the bestowers who say personhood is a status to be conferred

team soul who say personhood is natural, innate, and real (and, yes, God is the mastermind behind it all)

me: as a player for team soul, say the only personhood worth havin' is turalnatural, innate, and real...the zen take is nonsensical to me, and the bestowed version is a nasty gruel for a mighty appetite (unsatisfying & unsustaining)

If personhood is natural, innate, and real what are the parameters of personhood? It is not attached to being a biped as birds and some dinosaurs are were bipeds

Personhood is not attached to having four limbs as an amputee might lack all four limbs, or som other person be born with all four limbs deformed.

Personhood is not attached to being able to think clearly as even newborns, drunk men, delirious men, sleeping men, and mad men are persons.

Personhood is not attached to having a human face as victims of accidents of birth , disease, or trauma might lack faces.

Personhood is not attached to brain mind as some persons are born without the anatomical means to think, and others suffer brain lesions through accidents such as syphilis, strokes, and falls from horses.

Personhood is commonly attached to feelings and beliefs that beings who are most like oneself are persons. The more generous among us include as persons amputees, criminals, and anencephalic humans, but others have been and still are less than kindly and judge modern slaves, sweat shop workers, prisoners, or prostitutes to be non-persons without rights.

It would be absurd to suggest that God who made the Universe and all creatures great and small is averse to weak and imperfect humans

[henry quirk]

If personhood is natural, innate, and real what are the parameters of personhood? It is not attached to being a biped as birds and some dinosaurs are were bipeds

seems to me: persons possess a certain kind of physical complexity, a peculiar & particular structure, a capacity for self-reference, a capacity for self-awareness, a capacity for self-direction, a capacity for imagining, a capacity for reason, and capacities for a whole whack of other things I'm too lazy to suss out and list


Personhood is not attached to having four limbs as an amputee might lack all four limbs, or som other person be born with all four limbs deformed.

seems to me: a person can do without limbs or senses but it's natural that he should have them...that's why it's more accurate to speak of deformities and losses than differently-abled


Personhood is not attached to being able to think clearly as even newborns, drunk men, delirious men, sleeping men, and mad men are persons.

clear-thinkin' (thinkin' in general) is necessary to personhood, but it's not the end-all-be-all of it

in the examples you list -- newborns, drunks, sleepers, the fevered, the mad -- thinkin' is natural and normal...natural and unnatural interruptions are just that: interruptions


Personhood is not attached to brain mind as some persons are born without the anatomical means to think, and others suffer brain lesions through accidents such as syphilis, strokes, and falls from horses.

in the first, you're probably right: the truly brain dead are dead...we grieve the loss of what they were or what they could've have been cuz they were persons, or were supposed to be persons

in the second, I think you're wrong: an addled person is still a person...a malfunction in the brainpan doesn't disable personhood


Personhood is commonly attached to feelings and beliefs that beings who are most like oneself are persons. The more generous among us include as persons amputees, criminals, and anencephalic humans, but others have been and still are less than kindly and judge modern slaves, sweat shop workers, prisoners, or prostitutes to be non-persons without rights.

as I say: personhood is natural & innate: we don't bestow it...we rightly should recognize it, often, we wrongly ignore it


It would be absurd to suggest that God who made the Universe and all creatures great and small is averse to weak and imperfect humans

I never said God takes a dim view of imperfection...what I said is God builds, not for perfection but for good

[seeds]

If personhood is natural, innate, and real what are the parameters of personhood?

I suggest that personhood (selfhood/soulhood) is established at the moment the lights come on in an infant’s mind after what used to be a gasp-inducing slap on its behind just after being jettisoned from its mother’s womb...

...(I personally stood up and asked for another, please ).

Everything that happens to that newly minted person in the years to follow will have absolutely no bearing or altering effect on the permanence of that initial event.

It would be absurd to suggest that God who made the Universe and all creatures great and small is averse to weak and imperfect humans

If God truly exists, and if there truly exists a higher dimension of reality awaiting us after crossing the threshold of death,...

...then I furthermore suggest that any and all physiological or psychological defects that a human person may be afflicted with from birth, or as a result of malfunctioning genetics, disease, or accident, etc.,...

...is just a temporary issue having to do with the mind/body relationship and will be completely remedied when the mind (soul/person/self) exits the body in the event of death and awakens into its true and ultimate form.

The point is that as long as there was a successful formation of the soul (person) at that initial birthing event, then even if that person spent their entire life on earth in a vegetative state,...

...then such a state of existence would simply have been a temporary interlude that preceded their guaranteed awakening into their perfect and eternal form --> (the same form as God).
_______

[Belinda]

If personhood is natural, innate, and real what are the parameters of personhood? It is not attached to being a biped as birds and some dinosaurs are were bipeds

seems to me: persons possess a certain kind of physical complexity, a peculiar & particular structure, a capacity for self-reference, a capacity for self-awareness, a capacity for self-direction, a capacity for imagining, a capacity for reason, and capacities for a whole whack of other things I'm too lazy to suss out and list


Personhood is not attached to having four limbs as an amputee might lack all four limbs, or som other person be born with all four limbs deformed.

seems to me: a person can do without limbs or senses but it's natural that he should have them...that's why it's more accurate to speak of deformities and losses than differently-abled


Personhood is not attached to being able to think clearly as even newborns, drunk men, delirious men, sleeping men, and mad men are persons.

clear-thinkin' (thinkin' in general) is necessary to personhood, but it's not the end-all-be-all of it

in the examples you list -- newborns, drunks, sleepers, the fevered, the mad -- thinkin' is natural and normal...natural and unnatural interruptions are just that: interruptions


Personhood is not attached to brain mind as some persons are born without the anatomical means to think, and others suffer brain lesions through accidents such as syphilis, strokes, and falls from horses.

in the first, you're probably right: the truly brain dead are dead...we grieve the loss of what they were or what they could've have been cuz they were persons, or were supposed to be persons

in the second, I think you're wrong: an addled person is still a person...a malfunction in the brainpan doesn't disable personhood


Personhood is commonly attached to feelings and beliefs that beings who are most like oneself are persons. The more generous among us include as persons amputees, criminals, and anencephalic humans, but others have been and still are less than kindly and judge modern slaves, sweat shop workers, prisoners, or prostitutes to be non-persons without rights.

as I say: personhood is natural & innate: we don't bestow it...we rightly should recognize it, often, we wrongly ignore it


It would be absurd to suggest that God who made the Universe and all creatures great and small is averse to weak and imperfect humans

I never said God takes a dim view of imperfection...what I said is God builds, not for perfection but for good

Your theory is good but it's incomplete. It's good because it is generous enough to include all human beings. It's incomplete because you give no reason not to include other species in personhood. For instance other species have capabilities which can appear almost to perfection in some individuals of other species.You write:

seems to me: persons possess a certain kind of physical complexity, a peculiar & particular structure, a capacity for self-reference, a capacity for self-awareness, a capacity for self-direction, a capacity for imagining, a capacity for reason, and capacities for a whole whack of other things I'm too lazy to suss out and list

What is so special about the human sort of physical complexity or structure?

Some human individuals from birth to death permanently and irremediably lack capacities for self-reference, self-awareness,self-direction, imagination,and reason. Aristotle thought, as do you, that there is a perfect form of the human, and although nobody ever gets to attain perfection, the perfect form of the human is true. If Aristotle had known about evolution of species by natural selection he would have known that species are not permanently fixed , and the perfect form of any species can cease to be perfect when the species' habitat changes.

[Belinda]

If personhood is natural, innate, and real what are the parameters of personhood?

I suggest that personhood (selfhood/soulhood) is established at the moment the lights come on in an infant’s mind after what used to be a gasp-inducing slap on its behind just after being jettisoned from its mother’s womb...

...(I personally stood up and asked for another, please ).

Everything that happens to that newly minted person in the years to follow will have absolutely no bearing or altering effect on the permanence of that initial event.

It would be absurd to suggest that God who made the Universe and all creatures great and small is averse to weak and imperfect humans

If God truly exists, and if there truly exists a higher dimension of reality awaiting us after crossing the threshold of death,...

...then I furthermore suggest that any and all physiological or psychological defects that a human person may be afflicted with from birth, or as a result of malfunctioning genetics, disease, or accident, etc.,...

...is just a temporary issue having to do with the mind/body relationship and will be completely remedied when the mind (soul/person/self) exits the body in the event of death and awakens into its true and ultimate form.

The point is that as long as there was a successful formation of the soul (person) at that initial birthing event, then even if that person spent their entire life on earth in a vegetative state,...

...then such a state of existence would simply have been a temporary interlude that preceded their guaranteed awakening into their perfect and eternal form --> (the same form as God).
_______

Some infants are born without brains and never "light up". Civilised people accord personhood to these infants.

[Immanuel Can]

If personhood is natural, innate, and real what are the parameters of personhood? It is not attached to being a biped as birds and some dinosaurs are were bipeds

seems to me: persons possess a certain kind of physical complexity, a peculiar & particular structure, a capacity for self-reference, a capacity for self-awareness, a capacity for self-direction, a capacity for imagining, a capacity for reason, and capacities for a whole whack of other things I'm too lazy to suss out and list

Well, hang on: that's actually not a definition of "person." It's only a definition of "human." Unless we already know that all humans, and nothing but humans, qualify as persons, the definition doesn't provide us with any help.

However, historically, women, slaves, pre-born babies, infants and underage children, the comatose, the handicapped, various minorities, non-citizens of this or that state, and so on have, at one time or another, been granted to be human but have been denied full personhood.

For instance, nobody ever doubted that women were human; that's pretty obvious, given the mating cycle of human beings. But until the last century, they were not granted status as "persons" under the law...because they were deemed not to be capable of managing property, voting, or having full citizenship. So they were treated as humans...but not equal persons. In some countries, they still are not recognized as persons.

On the other side are some lunatics who want to include animals as "persons," meaning as bearers of full rights and equal consideration. The head of PETA once wrote, "A dog is a pig is a rat is a boy." Ethicist Peter Singer holds to that kind of a view, since he maintains that a low-functioning child might be ethically equivalent to, or inferior to high-functioning animals, and, he thinks deserve more rights therefore, and even greater immunity from being euthanized.

So to identify what a human is does not give us warrant for determining the limitations or parameters of "personhood." That is because "person" isn't just a biological category...it's a moral-relational one. If someone is a "person," then the implication is that they ought to receive the same rights and privileges as any other "person." We "owe" them something.

However, that isn't even the deepest problem. The real problem is this: even if we locate the group of entities we want to grant "personhood", how do we know that being a "person" actually DESERVES any special moral status? I mean, from a purely secular point of view, all animals and human beings too are nothing but the detritus of an accidental cosmic process. Why should one kind of accidental collocation of cosmic dust get some special status that does not get accorded to another speck of cosmic dust? Where is it written that that must be done? And if it's written nowhere, then what is this nonsense about "persons"?

If that's true, then NOTHING has special status...not even "persons," even if we can find a way to identify them.

[Immanuel Can]

Some infants are born without brains and never "light up". Civilised people accord personhood to these infants.

And yet, you claim to be pro-abortion, do you not?

How does that work? Do you have higher regard for an infant with no brain than for a functioning one? If killing the former is "uncivilized," to use your word, what are the abortionists?