Personhood

[FireDragon76]

I think that first you have to demonstrate that a soul exists...

Though I believe in souls, I am not necessarily comfortable with the idea presented, that it is possible for a soul to be fully capable and yet the body incapable. That sounds like a strange notion, and far too dualistic. It sounds more like Platonism.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think if anything your post is more offensive, because you are essentially saying that a mentally disabled person isn't conscious/ have affections/beliefs/intentions/action or some combination.

Many of them are not. But I still believe that they are persons as per the Christian tradition. They are just disabled persons that are unconscious.

 

[ExodusMe]

I think that first you have to demonstrate that a soul exists...

1) I don't think that is within the scope of this thread.
2) Most Christian's don't dispute the existence of the soul.
3) If you are asking me to prove the existence of the soul to a non-religious type I think the burden of proof lies with the non-believer considering modern science has no good explanation for human consciousness apart from soul/body dualism

 

[ToddNotTodd]

1) I don't think that is within the scope of this thread.
2) Most Christian's don't dispute the existence of the soul.
3) If you are asking me to prove the existence of the soul to a non-religious type I think the burden of proof lies with the non-believer considering modern science has no good explanation for human consciousness apart from soul/body dualism

1. If personhood depends on a soul it does.
2. Reality doesn't depend on what people believe, only on what's actually true.
3. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. If you're claiming a soul exists, then it's up to you to show your position true. Consciousness isn't evidence of a soul unless you can show that it's the case that consciousness can have no other explanation other than a soul.

 

[ExodusMe]

1. If personhood depends on a soul it does.
2. Reality doesn't depend on what people believe, only on what's actually true.
3. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. If you're claiming a soul exists, then it's up to you to show your position true. Consciousness isn't evidence of a soul unless you can show that it's the case that consciousness can have no other explanation other than a soul.

Well, a part from the fact that neuroscience has no explanation for the existence of human consciousness here are three reasons to think that mind/body dualism is true and that the mind (soul) is immaterial.

1) Decisions cannot be initiated through the physical stimulation of the brain - Wilder Penfield The Mystery of the Mind (pg77)
2) There are no faculties in the brain that explain the single consciousness experienced by humans.
3) If you attempt to explain the mind by using the physical brain you end up contradicting yourself or arriving at a conclusion in a non-logical manner because you have to accept determinism, which would mean that you have no free choices and if you have no free choices you are saying that you were determined to make the choice that you have no soul in which case you aren't arriving at your conclusion in a logical manner. - hard to explain but I did my best.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Well, a part from the fact that neuroscience has no explanation for the existence of human consciousness

Untrue, but even if it were true, it's not evidence for a soul.

here are three reasons to think that mind/body dualism is true and that the mind (soul) is immaterial.

All of your examples fail to point to a soul. Remember:

"Consciousness isn't evidence of a soul unless you can show that it's the case that consciousness can have no other explanation other than a soul."

All you're doing is presenting a series of arguments from ignorance, as in "we don't know how x works, so y must be the cause."

And that's a logical fallacy, which means it's not really an argument at all...

 

[quatona]

So this is a philosophical question but I thought it might fit here.

What makes a person a person?

Depends entirely on the context and the purpose for which you want to distinguish between a person and a non-person.
I don´t think that "person" is a term that lends itself to scientific, binary thinking.
(Without thinking much about it, I guess personally would tend to make "having feelings and emotions" the criteria for "personhood".)

Let's say for example you meet superman. Superman is from planet krypton, he is not human. But is he a person? Why or why not?

What would this distinction be relevant for? What would be the implications either way?

Can a sentient robot be a person?

In my understanding and terminology, "sentient robot" is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Dave-W]

Well, a part from the fact that neuroscience has no explanation for the existence of human consciousness

Most higher level animals have consciousness. They are aware of their surroundings and can make decisions on their own actions in accordance with that awareness. Some have argued that even some plants may posses a degree of consciousness. (the whole "play Mozart in your garden" thing back in the 1980s)

Without thinking much about it, I guess personally would tend to make "having feelings and emotions" the criteria for "personhood".

We just put down our geriatric cat Artie on Wednesday. He was 21 years old. (that's about 115 in human terms)

He had awareness. In his younger days he could jump about 10 feet high and catch birds in flight.
He had emotions. One could easily tell if he was happy, angry, excited, etc. Even embarrassed. (like the time he tried to imitate Aslan's roar on The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, and only produced a skawk)

Was Artie a "person?"

 

[quatona]

We just put down our geriatric cat Artie on Wednesday. He was 21 years old. (that's about 115 in human terms)

He had awareness. In his younger days he could jump about 10 feet high and catch birds in flight.
He had emotions. One could easily tell if he was happy, angry, excited, etc. Even embarrassed. (like the time he tried to imitate Aslan's roar on The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, and only produced a skawk)

Was Artie a "person?"

Depends on the definition and the context. I guess you and your family thought of him as a person? The law probably not so much.

 

[ExodusMe]

Untrue, but even if it were true, it's not evidence for a soul.

All of your examples fail to point to a soul. Remember:

"Consciousness isn't evidence of a soul unless you can show that it's the case that consciousness can have no other explanation other than a soul."

All you're doing is presenting a series of arguments from ignorance, as in "we don't know how x works, so y must be the cause."

And that's a logical fallacy, which means it's not really an argument at all...

I gave you reasons why the mind is immaterial and is not explained by the physical properties of our brain. The reasons I provided shows that something immaterial exists that interacts with our bodies. I don't really care to show that the soul exists because it isn't really possible to do to a non-religious type. I can't prove something immaterial exists using the physical properties of our universe. I also would laugh at myself if I tried to come up with some weird scientific evidence based on a dark matter theory or something. All of the reason for the existence of the soul will be theological or philosophical.

TLDR; I shouldnt have fallen for your trap lol... Dont be surprised if I don't respond to any replies regarding the existence of the soul.

Thanks

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I gave you reasons why the mind is immaterial and is not explained by the physical properties of our brain.

You gave me arguments from ignorance, and failed to show how your position has to be correct. Fallacies aren't evidence.

All of the reason for the existence of the soul will be theological or philosophical.

Unless something is demonstrable, it shouldn't be believed as true by anyone employing logic.

TLDR; I shouldnt have fallen for your trap lol...

I don't think logic is a "trap".

Dont be surprised if I don't respond to any replies regarding the existence of the soul.

Probably best for your position if you don't respond...

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't like Plantinga's definition at all. For one thing it would render someone in who was severely disabled a non-person, and the Christian tradition is against that.

Personhood could also be a two way street. If personhood includes empathy, emotion, and the ability to judge morality then we, as people, would also be bound by morality to treat disabled people the same way we would want to be treated if we became or were disabled. Part of the definition of "person" involves how we, as fellow people, should treat that fellow person, including physical and mental disabilities that might impair a person. To put it more succinctly, how we treat other people says a lot about what type of person we are.

 

[Loudmouth]

3) If you are asking me to prove the existence of the soul to a non-religious type I think the burden of proof lies with the non-believer considering modern science has no good explanation for human consciousness apart from soul/body dualism

That would be an argument from ignorance.

"I don't know" just means that we don't know. You don't get to insert whatever belief you want and have it treated as being true. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not with the skeptics who doubt the claim. If there is no evidence, then we stick with "I don't know".

 

[FireDragon76]

Personhood could also be a two way street. If personhood includes empathy, emotion, and the ability to judge morality then we, as people, would also be bound by morality to treat disabled people the same way we would want to be treated if we became or were disabled. Part of the definition of "person" involves how we, as fellow people, should treat that fellow person, including physical and mental disabilities that might impair a person. To put it more succinctly, how we treat other people says a lot about what type of person we are.

Some people would say it would be compassionate, though, to simply end the lives of the disabled. How would we decide what is and is not compassionate?

 

[Loudmouth]

Some people would say it would be compassionate, though, to simply end the lives of the disabled.

Tiptoeing on the Godwin line, some people would say that it is moral to commit genocide against the Jews. Obviously, people can propose immoral things or be wrong about what is moral. I would strongly suspect that a vast majority of people would consider it immoral to kill disabled people for simply being disabled.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would strongly suspect that a vast majority of people would consider it immoral to kill disabled people for simply being disabled.

Go look at the Netherlands, that ground is slipping fast.

 

[Dave-W]

How would we decide what is and is not compassionate?

Insurance companies decide by how it affects their profits.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would strongly suspect that a vast majority of people would consider it immoral to kill disabled people for simply being disabled.

I also realize the standard you are proposing is culturally relative. Since when has majority opinion ever equated truth? When we speak of morality, we usually mean a code of conduct that is not relative to the opinions of other people but is true in itself.

 

[Loudmouth]

Go look at the Netherlands, that ground is slipping fast.

Huh?

 

[Loudmouth]

I also realize the standard you are proposing is culturally relative. Since when has majority opinion ever equated truth? When we speak of morality, we usually mean a code of conduct that is not relative to the opinions of other people but is true in itself.

I tend to think that what is moral and true is accepted as moral and true by the majority of people because it is moral and true.