Person or not a person?

B

BMS

Well-known member
Temujin said:
I find that unlikely. You are not that incompetent.

Which is precisely why the potential for rational thought is a lousy reason to make someone a person. It's your argument. You should be defending it not attacking it.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, rather than your opinion.
So its all about opinion on whether the foetus is a person.. but that irrelevant to pro-choice.
 
R

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Temujin said:
Nope. As I have said, my son works with people who do not have the potential for rational thought, whose cognitive ability is less than a raven or a dolphin.
Click to expand...
So what? How does this affect my argument?

They still have the POTENTIAL. The reason they cannot fulfil this POTENTIAL is not becasue they lack it, but becasue there is a defect. Without that defect, they would be able to fulfil that POTENTIAL.

Every human being has the POTENTIAL for rational thought. Not every human being is able to fulfil that POTENTIAL for differering reasons, but the POTENTIAL is there.

Animals do not even have the POTENTIAL for rational thought, nor will they ever. The dolphin you are talking about doesn't even have the potential for rational thought even though it may be able to complete simple tasks or otherwise be trained to do things.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
romishpopishorganist said:
So what? How does this affect my argument?

They still have the POTENTIAL. The reason they cannot fulfil this POTENTIAL is not becasue they lack it, but becasue there is a defect. Without that defect, they would be able to fulfil that POTENTIAL.

Every human being has the POTENTIAL for rational thought. Not every human being is able to fulfil that POTENTIAL for differering reasons, but the POTENTIAL is there.

Animals do not even have the POTENTIAL for rational thought, nor will they ever. The dolphin you are talking about doesn't even have the potential for rational thought even though it may be able to complete simple tasks or otherwise be trained to do things.
Click to expand...
No, they do not have the potential. They have chronic profound cognitive disability. And yes, animals have the capacity for rational thought. Have you not seen corvids problem solving? Google dolphin intelligence. There's a dolphin in SeaWorld whose tank partner died, so it took over the partner's tricks. It had never been taught them, it had only seen its partner doing them. There are adults walking around holding down a job who can't do that. You underestimate the abilities of some animals to think. Sure the average human is way better at rational thinking than the average dolphin, chimpanzee or parrot, but there's overlap. As a definitive marker of personhood, it doesn't work, even when what potential there is is actualised.

What you are trying to say is that the average human has greater capacity for rational thought than any other animal, therefore they should be classified as persons. Why? The cheetah has a greater capacity for fast running than any other animal. The African elephant has greater mass than any land mammal. The common garden snail is the fastest snail species. Why is rational thought so important? I'm not saying it isn't, I just want you to spell it out, if you think that this line of argument is worth pursuing. At the end of the day, you don't like my criteria and I don't like yours. Opinions differ. Now what?
 
B

BMS

Well-known member
Temujin said:
No, they do not have the potential. They have chronic profound cognitive disability. And yes, animals have the capacity for rational thought. Have you not seen corvids problem solving? Google dolphin intelligence. There's a dolphin in SeaWorld whose tank partner died, so it took over the partner's tricks. It had never been taught them, it had only seen its partner doing them. There are adults walking around holding down a job who can't do that. You underestimate the abilities of some animals to think. Sure the average human is way better at rational thinking than the average dolphin, chimpanzee or parrot, but there's overlap. As a definitive marker of personhood, it doesn't work, even when what potential there is is actualised.

What you are trying to say is that the average human has greater capacity for rational thought than any other animal, therefore they should be classified as persons. Why? The cheetah has a greater capacity for fast running than any other animal. The African elephant has greater mass than any land mammal. The common garden snail is the fastest snail species. Why is rational thought so important? I'm not saying it isn't, I just want you to spell it out, if you think that this line of argument is worth pursuing. At the end of the day, you don't like my criteria and I don't like yours. Opinions differ. Now what?
Click to expand...
You are trying to make exceptions the rule.
Naah
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top