personhood

[Advocate]

Personhood is best understood as the capacity for moral reasoning. Babies and others with low IQs cannot participate in the moral workings of society and cannot be thought equal to others in the sense of understanding, responsibility, or culpability, despite being moral subjects.

Likewise citizenship must be the practical application of your moral reasoning, not something granted to all, that's rights. Privileges, especially the privilege of exercising power over others, must be earned by merit.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Personhood is best understood as the capacity for moral reasoning. Babies and others with low IQs cannot participate in the moral workings of society and cannot be thought equal to others in the sense of understanding, responsibility, or culpability, despite being moral subjects.

Likewise citizenship must be the practical application of your moral reasoning, not something granted to all, that's rights. Privileges, especially the privilege of exercising power over others, must be earned by merit.

Morality is a potential "programmed" in all humans.
Like sex, it is the growing child & adulthood and not personhood that is critical for the unfoldment and development of one moral functions.

Unfortunately there are a percentile of adults whose moral mechanisms are defective thus unable to trigger effective moral functions., e.g. psychopaths and other evil prone persons with their respective personhood.

[Immanuel Can]

Personhood is best understood as the capacity for moral reasoning.

"Moral reasoning"?

Well, we have not established what "moral" would mean, and we don't know what "reasoning" to it would look like, so if that were all we had, then that pretty much would leave us with no indicator of personhood at all.

Can you specify "moral," and how one "reasons" to get it?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476447 time=1603299602 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=476386 time=1603234068 user_id=15238]
Personhood is best understood as the capacity for moral reasoning.
[/quote]
"Moral reasoning"?

Well, we have not established what "moral" would mean, and we don't know what "reasoning" to it would look like, so if that were all we had, then that pretty much would leave us with no indicator of personhood at all.

Can you specify "moral," and how one "reasons" to get it?
[/quote]

The answer to any intractable topic, whether physics or economics or philosophy, is a framework of understanding. Drilling down to particular definitions isn't useful unless and until it's applied to a specific circumstance. Defining every possible term is a regressive way to approach philosophy. My contentions can't be understood by normal people because they can't understand how the words fit together, and by philosophers because they can't accept any definition of any word. They are, nevertheless, true in every way that matters. I will not accommodate infinite regress such as "define x" where x = anything and everything.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you specify "moral," and how one "reasons" to get it?

The answer to any intractable topic, whether physics or economics or philosophy, is a framework of understanding. Drilling down to particular definitions isn't useful unless and until it's applied to a specific circumstance. Defining every possible term is a regressive way to approach philosophy.

Not at all, actually. It's just basic.

Look at it this way: if you want to say what personhood is, then the criteria you supply must be specific. If they're vague and general, then the people reading simply take their own assumptions, plug those into what you say, and carry on as before.

So, for example, consider the case of a Muslim. He reads your definition based on "moral reasoning," and thinks "submission to Allah...who allows the beating of women and killing of infidels." That IS his definition of "moral." But also, it seems some people do not use the Koran and submit to Allah...therefore, they are not persons?

Or take a tribesman in Nigeria. He understands "moral" as meaning "burying all twin babies alive," since twins are considered very bad luck and would potentially cause his village to have very bad spirits. (This is true, by the way.) So very unselfishly, he kills his twin children for the common good, by ceremonially burying them...and they have to be alive.

Is this how you want to let him reason? Is this what you want him to take as a definition of "personhood"? Or do you have something more specific, something that can rule out his (mis-)understanding of your claim?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476456 time=1603301107 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=476448 time=1603299929 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476447 time=1603299602 user_id=9431]
Can you specify "moral," and how one "reasons" to get it?
[/quote]

The answer to any intractable topic, whether physics or economics or philosophy, is a framework of understanding. Drilling down to particular definitions isn't useful unless and until it's applied to a specific circumstance. Defining every possible term is a regressive way to approach philosophy. [/quote]
Not at all, actually. It's just basic.

Look at it this way: if you want to say what personhood is, then the criteria you supply must be specific. If they're vague and general, then the people reading simply take their own assumptions, plug those into what you say, and carry on as before.

So, for example, consider the case of a Muslim. He reads your definition based on "moral reasoning," and thinks "submission to Allah...who allows the beating of women and killing of infidels." That IS his definition of "moral." But also, it seems some people do not use the Koran and submit to Allah...therefore, they are not persons?

Is this how you want to let him reason? :shock: Is this what you want him to take as a definition of "personhood"? :shock: Or do you have something more specific, something that can rule out his (mis-)understanding of your claim?
[/quote]

All the questions you're raising right now are the same infinite regress. It literally cannot be useful to do philosophy that way. Any standard definition of reason will suffice to show how submitting to a being which cannot be logically or empirically verified as even existing is not a reasoning process. If you debate even that, there's literally nothing else that cannot be debated by the same terms and that literally cannot progress.

[Advocate]

[quote=Advocate post_id=476459 time=1603301350 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476456 time=1603301107 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=476448 time=1603299929 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476447 time=1603299602 user_id=9431]
Can you specify "moral," and how one "reasons" to get it?
[/quote]

The answer to any intractable topic, whether physics or economics or philosophy, is a framework of understanding. Drilling down to particular definitions isn't useful unless and until it's applied to a specific circumstance. Defining every possible term is a regressive way to approach philosophy. [/quote]
Not at all, actually. It's just basic.

Look at it this way: if you want to say what personhood is, then the criteria you supply must be specific. If they're vague and general, then the people reading simply take their own assumptions, plug those into what you say, and carry on as before.

So, for example, consider the case of a Muslim. He reads your definition based on "moral reasoning," and thinks "submission to Allah...who allows the beating of women and killing of infidels." That IS his definition of "moral." But also, it seems some people do not use the Koran and submit to Allah...therefore, they are not persons?

Is this how you want to let him reason? :shock: Is this what you want him to take as a definition of "personhood"? :shock: Or do you have something more specific, something that can rule out his (mis-)understanding of your claim?
[/quote]

All the questions you're raising right now are the same infinite regress. It literally cannot be useful to do philosophy that way. Any standard definition of reason will suffice to show how submitting to a being which cannot be logically or empirically verified as even existing is not a reasoning process. If you debate even that, there's literally nothing else that cannot be debated by the same terms and that literally cannot progress.
[/quote]

"Yes, but what do you mean by 'any standard definition of reasoning'?"

See?!

[Immanuel Can]

All the questions you're raising right now are the same infinite regress.

What "infinite regress"? There's none involved, so far as I can see. Who is "regressing" and in what way?

Any standard definition of reason will suffice to show how submitting to a being which cannot be logically or empirically verified as even existing is not a reasoning process.

Oh.

So the Muslim or the Nigerian tribesman aren't "moral reasoners," so they aren't "persons"? That has to be your conclusion, if "moral reasoning" is the criterion of personhood, after all.

I would suggest that the Nigerian tribesman, in particular, is certainly "reasoning" -- he's reasoning that bad luck is bad for the village. And he's certainly "morally" concerned, as he's prepared to kill his own children for the common good. A lot of folks would recognize that as at least an attempt at doing something he thinks is moral.

So he has the "capacity" for moral reasoning. He's just doing it wrong. So is he now a person, or is he not? Are the only "persons" the ones that reason exactly the way you do...secularly, that is...rather than religiously, as the tribesman does?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476461 time=1603301657 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=476459 time=1603301350 user_id=15238]
All the questions you're raising right now are the same infinite regress.[/quote]
What "infinite regress"? There's none involved, so far as I can see. Who is "regressing" and in what way?

[quote]Any standard definition of reason will suffice to show how submitting to a being which cannot be logically or empirically verified as even existing is not a reasoning process.[/quote]
Oh. :shock:

So the Muslim or the Nigerian tribesman aren't "moral reasoners," so they aren't "persons"? :shock: That has to be your conclusion, if "moral reasoning" is the criterion of personhood, after all.
[/quote]

I mean that if i define the terms you ask me to define, it doesn't get us anywhere. Either you accept them as basic English or you can just ask me again to clarify some other semantic point. I've been down that road many many times and i promise you it doesn't go anywhere.

Personhood is Capacity for moral reasoning. Whether and how one uses it is a separate question. I was completely clear about that. If misunderstanding is so easily accomplished by simply missing a word, how adding more words by clarifying a bunch of words help the situation rather than exacerbate it?

But also, this post is speculative more than explanatory.

Ultimately, the universe is an infinitely recursive meta-mobius and any explanation is also going to be circular except to the extent it specifically deals with that regress. I do so by framing my understanding as a story. My definitions aren't necessary but they are sufficient which makes the problem for any other explanation to show how it is better. We can avoid the slippery slope entirely.

[Immanuel Can]

I mean that if i define the terms you ask me to define, it doesn't get us anywhere.

Sure it would. I'd know a lot more about what you mean if you define your terms than if you left them undefined.

Or is it that you don't HAVE any such definition, and wouldn't know what to offer if I asked?

Personhood is Capacity for moral reasoning. Whether and how one uses it is a separate question.

Yes, but we don't even know what the first statement means. And no, we can't accept it as basic English, because the Nigerian tribesman has a different view of what "moral" means, and doesn't speak English, in all probability, so he can't accept it at all....even if "moral" was an uncontested term in English -- which clearly, it is not.

"Moral" means very different things to different cultural and ideological groups. So to speak of it as the sine qua non of personhood would not even tell us what sorts of behaviours you have in mind, or who we are to regard as a "person" therefore.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=476466 time=1603302419 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=476465 time=1603301926 user_id=15238]
I mean that if i define the terms you ask me to define, it doesn't get us anywhere. [/quote]
Sure it would. I'd know a lot more about what you mean if you define your terms than if you left them undefined.

Or is it that you don't HAVE any such definition, and wouldn't know what to offer if I asked?

[quote]Personhood is Capacity for moral reasoning. Whether and how one uses it is a separate question.[/quote]
Yes, but we don't even know what the first statement means. And no, we can't accept it as basic English, because the Nigerian tribesman has a different view of what "moral" means, and doesn't speak English, in all probability, so he can't accept it at all....even if "moral" was an uncontested term in English -- which clearly, it is not.

"Moral" means very different things to different cultural and ideological groups. So to speak of it as the [i]sine qua non[/i] of personhood would not even tell us what sorts of behaviours you have in mind, or who we are to regard as a "person" therefore.
[/quote]

My meta-point is something the same as why Sammy isn't wrong. You can use a broad swath of definitions in that understanding and it will still make sense. Unless you're traveling far from ordinary understandings, it should make sense on it's face. The statement is true by most definitions of moral and reasoning. If there's a definition that breaks the contention it's because the definition is itself invalid and that will have to be shown on a case-by-case basis because there are infinite possible definitions of each of the terms. Only the likely ones need concern us for ordinary philosophy. It is much simpler to assume the truth of the statement and try to find an exception. An exception gets right to the point of either where a clarification is useful or why it's incorrect.

[Immanuel Can]

An exception gets right to the point of either where a clarification is useful or why it's incorrect.

The Nigerian tribesman is just such an "exception." He doesn't work for your definition. Most people will (and I think, rightly) believe that he is a "person" even though he doesn't "reason" to the same conclusion you do. And most people will recognize him as earnest to be "moral" on the terms he understands, and to be reasoning how best to be "moral."

In other words, he has both the capacity for moral reasoning and is doing moral reasoning...just not YOUR moral reasoning.

He's the "exception" that "gets right to the point" of why you can't define "personhood" as "moral reasoning." He shows that we all don't just easily and automatically know what YOU, in specific, mean when you say "moral"; the Nigerian tribesman has quite a different view from what (I suspect) yours is likely to be.

On that basis, then, I have to say that the definition of "person" as "moral reasoner" is (to use your words) not "useful," and is "incorrect."

[Advocate]

>The Nigerian tribesman is just such an "exception." He doesn't work for your definition. Most people will (and I think, rightly) believe that he is a "person" even though he doesn't "reason" to the same conclusion you do. And most people will recognize him as earnest to be "moral" on the terms he understands, and to be reasoning how best to be "moral."

If he's using a process of evaluating evidence to make predictions, that'll do. If he does so effectively, that's the moral part - to what end.

>In other words, he has both the capacity for moral reasoning and is doing moral reasoning...just not YOUR moral reasoning.

If he's making decisions based on what he wants to believe rather than what reality makes obvious, that's not reasoning, and that makes him amoral - emotional/sentient/animal.

>He's the "exception" that "gets right to the point" of why you can't define "personhood" as "moral reasoning." He shows that we all don't just easily and automatically know what YOU, in specific, mean when you say "moral"; the Nigerian tribesman has quite a different view from what (I suspect) yours is likely to be.

Many people considered persons today are p-xombies; at best persons who have never used their capacity in any meaningful way.

>On that basis, then, I have to say that the definition of "person" as "moral reasoner" is (to use your words) not "useful," and is "incorrect."

You totally jumped the gun there. I just needed something more specific to respond to. I trust i've eliminated any perceived gaps?

[Immanuel Can]

Many people considered persons today are p-xombies; at best persons who have never used their capacity in any meaningful way.

If so, that surely doesn't describe your Nigerian tribesman. He's using his "capacity," just doing it differently from what you expect.

I just needed something more specific to respond to.

That's what I was saying about your definition. It isn't specific enough to allow anybody to respond coherently to it.