Spam Talks Philosophy

[Asuras]

So what about vegetables? As in the people kind? People whose minds are dead, and all they can do is follow what they're being guided to do?

They were a "true person" beforehand, unlike a fetus.

[Hellis]

Life starts at the end, not the beginning. Thoughts are threads, reaching out to us, guiding us to where it all began. Death is everything. Everything is death.

[Whisket]

Shoot people
not dope

[Hellis]

Shoot people
not dope

YOu should be PR manager.

[Aragorn]

Exactly what it says on the tin.

Subject: At which point does an entity become a person? What is the definition? When would an entity begin to fall under our umbrella of moralities and ethics?

EDIT: If I underline stuff, it means I'm playing devils advocate, and that may or may not be me actual viewpoint.

A difficult question. I believe it is upon the formation of their personality. All mammals have a brain, heart, lungs, etc etc. But only humans are known for having a complex psychological make up. This is what makes humans different from other animals, who only act upon instinct.

[Jorick]

Exactly what it says on the tin.

Subject: At which point does an entity become a person? What is the definition? When would an entity begin to fall under our umbrella of moralities and ethics?

The question is ambiguously phrased, so I'll state right now that nothing but a human can be logically considered a 'person.' A person is an individual autonomous human. This is simply the definition of the term. Even if a chimp or a dolphin were to developed the traits that separate humanity from other animals (mainly imagination and varieties of abstract thought) they would not be a person because of this fact. Being sentient and capable of higher order thought does not make a thing a person. Nor does a living human instantly equal a person. As stated before, the definition of 'person' is an individual autonomous human.

This question of morality and ethics, although given in quick succession to the previous two, is an entirely separate matter that could have a few very different interpretations. First, by 'fall under our umbrella' it could mean that the entity is beholden to following our ideas of morals and ethics. I don't think that this is your intent, but I shall answer this interpretation nonetheless. A person is never beholden to following morals and ethics. They are constructs of society rather than intrinsic properties of the world or the species; for the latter, the best we have are instincts that give us a vague aversion to harming others for no reasonable personal gain. One can always choose to cast off the yoke of society and throw morals and ethics to the wind, but they will also have to face the consequences of that selfsame society punishing them for this act. Such is life.

Another interpretation could be something like "when then should we consider the moral and ethical ramifications of actions done to this entity." This seems an odd one to me, but it's possible you meant it that way. Once you get past the above decision of whether or not to bother with morality and ethics in the first place, the answer is simple. If you said no to morals and who cares about the consequences, the answer is 'never;' one need never consider the moral and ethical ramifications of actions if they've decided not to give a damn about them. If you said yes to morals, the answer is 'always;' regardless of the personhood or lack thereof of, if you are following morals you should apply it to everything rather than just humans. Some may decide it's perfectly moral to kill an animal, others may not. Some may think it's moral to steal from a rich person, others may not. "It this moral/ethical" is always a personal question that one should consider before committing any act, should they be of a mind to remain a living and non-incarcerated member of their society. You very well may find your morals clashing with the laws of your society and still be penalized, but such matters should of course enter your calculations as well. All actions are a simple cost-benefit and risk analysis: is the gain worth the cost and potential risk?

Moving on, the interpretation that I think you were actually going for: "when exactly does a person acquire the special moral and ethical consideration given to humans." That is to say, when would one consider killing this entity for no good reason a murder rather than base killing (among other distinctions). This interpretation is why I say this question is odd to pair with the question of what personhood entails. All humans, regardless of whether or not they can be considered a person (an autonomous individual), should be given this special moral and ethical consideration. You mentioned vegetables, humans whose brains are essentially dead while their body lives on. They are not a person any longer, they are incapable of autonomous thought and action, but they are still a human thus one must give due moral and ethical consideration before ending their life; again, some may choose it's better to just let them die rather than keeping them alive in this state, some may say it's immoral, there is on one objective answer. On the other side of things, young children are also not people because they lack the capacity for autonomy. Again, the lack of personhood does not mean they are not human. Being human and being a person are two separate matters, the only moral and ethical difference being a person is capable of considering moral and ethical questions whereas a human who is not a person may not be; for all intents and purposes one must consider all humans, persons or not, as humans.

Now, it's quite possible that you intended this to, at least in part, be a question about the morality of abortion. Since I've made a huge point of humanity being the biggest factor in moral and ethical consideration rather than personhood, I'll address this as well. A fetus should not be considered a human until such point as it has all its vital organs, especially the brain, formed and in working order. The estimate for when this happens ranges from 20 to 26 weeks into pregnancy. If it lacks the parts that make up a human, it isn't a human, it's as simple as that. The brain is the most vital piece of this puzzle because that is the biggest factor in what makes a human different from other animals. Once the brain has finished fetal development and reaches the stage of growth (the basic growth in size and neural connections rather than forming the brain itself) that continues for years outside of the womb, this being that 20-26 weeks marker I mentioned, then it can be considered a human. Until such a point it is a thing that might become a human, but potential is not reality. Proof of this can be found in plant life: a seed may one day become a massive tree that you can make a house out of, but it is not yet a tree and so you cannot built a house out of it. Say it's a tree all you like, but you'll be left with no roof over your head because potential is not reality.

I think that's about it. I could maunder on about more tangentially related topics, but this is a good stopping point.

[Kwak]

^/thread

[Hellis]

Jorick. SOmetimes. My words. They flow. But never like this. what is life. What is spam. If not once, Joricks slap you with his intellectual D.

[Jorick]

^/thread

Jorick. SOmetimes. My words. They flow. But never like this. what is life. What is spam. If not once, Joricks slap you with his intellectual D.

[Herzinth]

The question is ambiguously phrased, so I'll state right now that nothing but a human can be logically considered a 'person.' A person is an individual autonomous human. This is simply the definition of the term. Even if a chimp or a dolphin were to developed the traits that separate humanity from other animals (mainly imagination and varieties of abstract thought) they would not be a person because of this fact. Being sentient and capable of higher order thought does not make a thing a person. Nor does a living human instantly equal a person. As stated before, the definition of 'person' is an individual autonomous human.

Mm. My bad for sloppy wording. What I was trying to get at was at which point an entity could be considered on par with people in terms of consciousness, complexity, etc etc. AKA, as you mentioned later, when the special sets of morals we tend to give to humans would also be applied to said entity.

Another interpretation could be something like "when then should we consider the moral and ethical ramifications of actions done to this entity." This seems an odd one to me, but it's possible you meant it that way. Once you get past the above decision of whether or not to bother with morality and ethics in the first place, the answer is simple. If you said no to morals and who cares about the consequences, the answer is 'never;' one need never consider the moral and ethical ramifications of actions if they've decided not to give a damn about them. If you said yes to morals, the answer is 'always;' regardless of the personhood or lack thereof of, if you are following morals you should apply it to everything rather than just humans. Some may decide it's perfectly moral to kill an animal, others may not. Some may think it's moral to steal from a rich person, others may not. "It this moral/ethical" is always a personal question that one should consider before committing any act, should they be of a mind to remain a living and non-incarcerated member of their society. You very well may find your morals clashing with the laws of your society and still be penalized, but such matters should of course enter your calculations as well. All actions are a simple cost-benefit and risk analysis: is the gain worth the cost and potential risk?

So correct me if I'm wrong, but here you're talking about whether or not we should think about what kind of morals must be taken into account when acting upon this entity? Not necessarily what level or kind of moral decision, but just that you're making one?
If so, nicely said.

Moving on, the interpretation that I think you were actually going for: "when exactly does a person acquire the special moral and ethical consideration given to humans." That is to say, when would one consider killing this entity for no good reason a murder rather than base killing (among other distinctions). This interpretation is why I say this question is odd to pair with the question of what personhood entails.

I was trying to use person as in something that receives the same moral considerations as a normal human. It was the best term I could think of off the top of my head sadly, and I tried to compensate for it by using the questions to specify and define each other.

All humans, regardless of whether or not they can be considered a person (an autonomous individual), should be given this special moral and ethical consideration. You mentioned vegetables, humans whose brains are essentially dead while their body lives on. They are not a person any longer, they are incapable of autonomous thought and action, but they are still a human thus one must give due moral and ethical consideration before ending their life; again, some may choose it's better to just let them die rather than keeping them alive in this state, some may say it's immoral, there is no one objective answer. On the other side of things, young children are also not people because they lack the capacity for autonomy. Again, the lack of personhood does not mean they are not human. Being human and being a person are two separate matters, the only moral and ethical difference being a person is capable of considering moral and ethical questions whereas a human who is not a person may not be; for all intents and purposes one must consider all humans, persons or not, as humans.

Hmm. Okay. Though this doesn't (as far as I can tell) actually get to the (vague and undefined) crux of what I was asking. What I was wondering was at which point a non-human (be it another species, or something artificial) deserves/should acquire said moral and ethical considerations that are usually reserved specifically for humans.

Now, it's quite possible that you intended this to, at least in part, be a question about the morality of abortion.

Oh no. I'm well aware of what happens when people start talking abortion. Threads get closed down, and bans may go flying.

All in all, very well said, and I appreciate the serious take on the subject.