A surprisingly sane thread. Nice one Bob! Particularly at this time.

All i can really say is, hehehe. This was the obvious outcome. It seemed clear to me at least a year out. I very much hope Mikie is getting the help he needs right now. Hands across America.

family. *vin diesel voice*.

Having experience, then being able to focus and divide that experience into 'experiences' is innate. — Philosophim

This is what I was trying to get at, but there's no real explanation for why this is the case other than 'it's required for what we take to be experience'. However, some mental experiences (usually drug-induced) can counter this potential. The mind, either without, or unaware of, the body, may not need these a prioris to 'experience' something like timeless space for instance.

Though, you addressed your response to Bob, so i'm unsure exactly the intent.

I think this can be fairly easily sorted out with a question:

Is your position that a Zygote and an Adult Human are the same thing?

This seems, to me, akin to someone who does not know the difference between a fly and a human. Your experience doesn't matter if you're trying to reason your way to a position.

Given the above, I'm unsure you're even having a 'moral' conversation if that's the case.

For sure - OP is entirely wrong. Using the dumb colloquial version for sure.

It's been read.

Really good point worth distilling here - you cannot have thoughts without separation of objects/concepts/abstractions. This requires a spatial aspect not deduced frmo the objects/concepts/abstractions. Very good.

It's about who is more competent than whom in a specific area of expertise which may or may not have anything to do with intelligence, e.g. humor and grammar. — T Clark

Which, contra your previous comments, the "DK effect" as described in your proferrings presents a valuable, discreet metric along which to deply the DK epithet. I work in a highly-specialised area, within a highly-specialised area. Plenty of people in the former group (the wider speciality) believe they are apt to perform in the more-specialised area I am working in. They, by and large, are not, and they have not done the work to understand this fact. The effect this has on them is palpable, obvious, apparent and extremely difficult to work with.

This is a plain-reading of the DK effect in action. I see no issue. It is meaningful, identifiable and quite specific.

So it’s messy. — Fire Ologist

I agree with this, and I think this is why this particular debate always ends up coming down to a 'gut feeling', such as that contains any meaning.

An adult organism is constantly changing too. So if we want to say an adult human Is a “thing”, and then say it constantly changes, tomorrow morning we have a new “thing” too according to you. — Fire Ologist

I'm only in partial agreement here. An adult organism is always changing, but with the exception of something like surgical removal or addition, it's form does not change. We do not expect an adult human to become another form. We do with younger humans - even toddlers. Proportions change drastically in those first 10 years, and then function changes drastically in the next four or five. Once that's relatively settled by roughly 25, we do not expect any more significant changes. Nay, we couldn't expect any that are not aberrations. I think this is important and supports my distinction.

So “thing” becomes a meaningless term. There are no things anywhere ever anymore. — Fire Ologist

This seems, sorry to say, a totally unreasonable strawman. It doesn't actually address the use of 'thing' anyway. It addresses it's application to a changeable entity.

we can integrate constant change with its permanent subject of that change. — Fire Ologist

In my view, it's not 'we can'. It is the case. There's nothing further.

Now when a sperm fertilizes an egg, we can say the constantly changing sperm is a thing that, once joined with the egg, ceases to be a thing, and the egg and sperm together start the motions and changes of a new thing. — Fire Ologist

We certainly could. But, if you want to do this, you need also take on board some other very, VERY important aspects of gestation that would provide a new 'thing'. And that also supports both my view above, and that we can have various ideas of what a 'person' or 'human being' comes into existence. The gut feeling determinant remains.

A human zygote isn’t a different thing than a human adult - it’s what a human being is when it is first conceived like the adult is what a human being is when it is grown. — Fire Ologist

I would posit this as the most important, clear, contradiction in your thinking.

If they are not 'different thing's then they cannot be alternate states of 'one another', let's say. They would be the same thing. There is a difference, which you acknowledge here.

Doesn't this perhaps go to the point made by Banno earlier that religion or essentialism are influencing such views? — Tom Storm

The preceding line attests to my assent :P This is me using Banno's point in a way I think is slightly less pedantic, and more effective (to me, personally, anyhow).

I am pro-choice on the grounds that I care about women, I don't care about fetuses other than in respect of the woman carrying it (..any given..). Fetuses, on my view, cannot suffer in a way remotely morally relevant.

Btw, if pro-choice advocates don’t believe that human zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses are human what species do they think they are? — praxis

I don't think anyone worth speaking to could deny this. Yet, Banno's flimsy point beats it.

No reasonable person could read all three beings as morally hte same, without doing some loop-de-loops which rest on embarrassment, basically.

This is an indication of why the nature of time is of the utmost importance to moral philosophy, but both you and AmadeusD refused to accept this fact. — Metaphysician Undercover

Whatever you're talking about has nothing to do with me. This is not a position i hold/deny/have had much thought about.

Since you've mentioned it, I agree. No f-ing clue how anything else came across. The problem with what you're saying is that its an empirical aspect of any given moral decision and cannot be a guiding, formal aspect of moral thinking in the abstract.

Still, you're not wrong. The literal stretch of time in which one can weigh up options bears heavy on any moral decisions (that are adequately considered, anyway).

I think what's trying (imo, quite badly) to do is point out that your argument (i.e how you would assess the question yourself) is inapt for much of a pregnancy.

I realise it's likely you will side with the mother regardless, But i think that's what he wants you to admit.

If the idea that is that, stepping back, in the round, the mother takes moral priority, does this include up to the anticipated date of birth? Timothy nearly got there, point out a human is also a clump of cells.

But there is obviously also a difference between a blastocyst and a fetus. But also, a fetus and a baby. Which means what to your version of the argument? The reason most want an 'essentialist' account of personhood is to demarcate at which point a 'clump of cells' gets moral priority (you may bite the bullet of late-term abortion. I don't, so this isn't obvious to me). This is because we don't make decisions 'in the round' or 'stepping back'. We make them on the actual facts (i.e how far along is this fetus at hte time the abortion has been proposed).

then you need a very robust "theory of error" to explain how it's the case that thousands of skilled philosophers think otherwise, — J

Not at all. Their output makes vaguely more sense - which is not enough to shift the burden on to me. They provide no access to clarity - it's usually fairly pained interpolation, from what I see. Trying to rescue nonsense. If my response to those philosophers is the same (and aligns with basic psychosocial habits, imported into this field) as my response to the fundamental writings, then I need explain nought, but that this(being the above psychosocial habits mentioned) explains it (for me, obviously). A lot of people thought Mein Kampf was a great book.

I'd also point out that there are the same number, if not more philosophers, on the side of perhaps not taking Continentals that seriously, for the reasons I've given. I'm unsure that rejection of a modern turn on a millennia old practice requires much explanation, beyond "Well, you're doing something else, now".

I believe I've missed a joke.

Neither of these apply to your title. You're welcome.

hat I've learned from this conversation: — ucarr

Is, unfortunately, that flowery language intended to refer to proper concepts and ideas, lacking wholly in substance, will be argued for ad infinitum in the face of clear evidence of hte above. Politeness apparently does not help in this endeavour, nor does direct application of rationality and reason. Trying to figure out someone's ideas when their language is purposefully ambiguous, contradictory and deceptive is probably a waste of time.

That's not true, at all. Men creating a zygote tethers them to a legal requirement that can be absolutely life-destroying for a man who did not intend the zygote to be created.
I don't think they should be off the hook, to be clear, but this is wrong.

The etymology of 'agnostic' leads directly to the definition i gave "Not-knowledge". A-gnostic. I hear what you're saying, but these are attempts to use language to get past the problems I'm putting forward. You can disagree with these definitions, if you want to, and go on the merry-go-round a few more times. And I'm not even knocking that - but you want to make an argument. So let's get to it...

to knowing about reality. — Hallucinogen

to not knowing. It's not a commitment anymore than thinking you could know is. And that's, essentially, present in all other takes (deism, theism, atheism). So, can't really argue with the premise, but the idea that this somehow weakens the position is not right on my view.

s such, defining agnostic in that way makes it unlike how agnostic is used in the broader sense, to not have a commitment to some belief. — Hallucinogen

This is how Atheism is used in the 'broader sense'. This is quite well-established by the multitude of arguments about it between the leading theists and atheists from the late 90s to today. 'misuse' of the words, according to those who adopt them, is the central problem in discussions of this sort. I am trying my best to avoid the ambiguity you find to be helpful here. I realise several pages of several threads have gone over this in the last year, and I stand by my takes with full confidence there. The words need to be clear, and there is a clear, non-overlapping way to use them without ambiguity. The etymology would lend itself to those uses.

What I was asking you is — Hallucinogen

I answered what you asked. What you've said here is just a slightly more elaborate version of hte same question. Your conception of 'theism' is wrong, on my account, and doesn't capture what 'theism' represents. It would also capture deism. So, if hte entity you're talking about is something more akin to the 'New Age' conceptions - "the force of love", "the creative power of hte universe" etc... It is, definitionally, eternal and all-powerful, but is not at all theistic. So, there's no contradiction here that I'm able to ascertain.

An omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity is either inherently theistic or not, why would it be unlikely that an atheist would believe in such? — Hallucinogen

The bold doesn't bear on the non-bold here, at all, in any way. The reason an atheist is hardly taken to believe in a deistic God (of some kind - make it super-vague if that helps) is that an atheist is far more likely to be thinking rationally and wanting evidence instead of settling for an inference in comparison to a theist, or deist who (as I understand) must be making a rather large leap to their conclusion, no matter how far rationality got them. And that's all that can support deistic or theistic beliefs, imo (well, I say inference - I do also mean 'inference from intuition' or something similar - one's deeply-felt passions can infer something is hte case, but only infer on no other evidence).

Unfortunately, I am always left with a really sour taste upon being handed anything that comes with a 'you have to wait until you click with it' type of disclaimer.
I find the relatively standard Continentals, all, plus Haabermas, who have been mentioned in the last page, not only unclear in terms of writing (i find that fairly easy to get through) but totally unclear as to what's actually being posited or 'argued for' in a lot of cases. Hegel being a pretty notable exception, I mainly just conclude that most of his more fundamental ideas are rubbish.

Maybe i've not given it enough time - but it seems to me that "You just don't get it yet" is the underlying notion here, which also tends to come when you don't like th same music as someone else :P

Doesn't make sense. Atheism is the denial or lack of belief in the existence of God. Deism is belief in God that doesn't intervene — Hallucinogen

No, not quite. Deism is belief in a pervasive force of creation. Some resort to the Gaia version of this when they want to personalize it, but it has not personality, the way a 'God' does.\\\

That's agnosticism. — Hallucinogen

No. This has been gone over so many times, it's really disappointing that you're throwing this line out. Agnosticism is the position that we can't know whether or not God exists. Atheism is the abstinence from belief in a God or Gods. Atheism is more of a non-position. This might be why what you're saying makes little sense, as it may not applicable to the terms you're using.

Do you think you can be an atheist and believe in an omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity? — Hallucinogen

If it's not a theistic one, then by the lack of definitional restriction, yes, you could. Seems highly unlikely, but sure. But, given your take on atheism and deism, it seems perhaps you want to define it out, on your terms. Fine. Doesn't work for me, in those terms.

"Objects of experience" or 'aspects of understanding or judgement'? Perhaps an example or two would be helpful. — Janus

I suppose that just depends on what way you're comfortable presenting hte notion. I mean to say that there are things that exist outside of minds, and things that exist only within minds. Something like an 'intention' or numbers, or the complex network of inter-related memories and partial memories that create a specific state of mind... Things that can't be pointed to, in any way, basically. I think it's completely coherent to say that these things are real, in the way Banno uses the word a few posts ago, and that they do not 'exist' in the way something would want to exist while not being experienced by consciousness.

though I might say that morality defined thusly (or perhaps very similarly) is the kind worth discussing. — Dan

Ok, bingo. Thank you (no impugning - just that this answers me directly).

"big history" is a great enemy for the Libertarians among us hahaha.

do such people exist? — Shawn

Do you mean to ask whether there are members who have never posted? Seems like you've answered that one!

Personally, my issue with Stoicism is that 'when it fails', there's not a way to reason yourself back to it. It's a mental state. I think the tenets (moderation etc..) are laudable, but they are states of mind rather than goals that can be effectively aimed at, I don't think.
It can take years of practice to alter ones habitual responses to life's foibles. That said, I'm something of a stoic myself. Heuehuehu.

Indifference doesn't seem to me apt. Acceptance seems more reasonable. Indifference still amounts to some form of ignorance in the face of most challenges. Dispassionately attacked the problem seems a bit more apt, and I can't rightly call that indifference. My habits are mainly around creating psychological buffer zones. Nought else seems apt for this task.

I wasn’t aware that one needed to know and care if he was being treated morally. — NOS4A2

Now you are. Morality is strictly to do with how we treat one another. A Zygote is not a 'one another'. This is probably the only intuition of Banno's I think needs no defense. This just, as noted, leads to some hefty bullet-biting.

What facts are vague? I ask because we actually know a lot about zygotes. — NOS4A2

At what point the zygote becomes a 'person', or variably 'baby', 'a human' etc... etc... These are the 'facts' on which most people's positions rely(i have excluded those absolutist positions that are doctrinaire rather than reasoned) and they aren't stable or lets say 'complete' enough to objectively inform us of anything within that grey area as to why we would place the flag 'there'. Yes, we know a lot about zygotes and their development, but which way-point would you choose? It sounds like for you it's conception. Others might be implantation, heartbeat, viability, pain reception among others. But none of these are hard-and-fast in terms of telling us when a 'person' comes into being (or, when that might be morally relevant). I can only really understand taking conception to be the salient point if one is to be, lets say, overly cautious, because of the above indeterminacies. If you're not copping to that, I'm unsure how to make sense of it. But this doesn't seem to me a moral question, anyway. It's similar to saying "well, I can't figure out the precise moral facts, so I'll give it a wide berth". I can't see a real problem in that, other than tryig to make others assent (which you're not doing, so that's fine).

In fairness, 'interesting' has no moral valence. It is interesting, historically speaking. But this is a digression. I would just have made this point to uCarr to make it clear he is using terms in a way no one else would in these contexts.

Every single one of you were zygotes. Luckily no one treated you with such disregard. — NOS4A2

We wouldn't know, or care. That's not a moral consideration.

The vagueness of the terms used to describe it and the arbitrariness of the acceptable time to kill indicate this. This is because the position lends itself to incoherence. — NOS4A2

None of this is the case, and the quote you responded to points each out. There is no incoherence. There's just potentially uncomfortable bullet biting.
THe 'vagueness' of the terms doesn't exist. The facts are vague. The terms refer to them. This is no point at which a zygote 'becomes a person'. It does not exist. It occurs somewhere in the grey area and any position has to choose an arbitrary point here if that's what the view is based on.
(though, its very, very much worth noting that 'arbitrary' is not apt here. There are reasons which very much restrict what's acceptable on most views except absolutists ones (i.e killing an infant is also fine, or there is no form of contraception which is acceptable).

Conceptual analysis would be useful if it produces clarity, and it is arguable that clarity should help us to live better than confusion. — Janus

See my comment a couple above yours (assume you have, just using a figure of speech).

Clarity seems to be the biggest difference between the two 'camps'.

Hmm. I see. So, ethics must be a bi-directional consideration (i.e if we are to act, only acts related to other moral actors matter?) Novel - and I'm sympathetic.

This is my premise — ucarr

It isn't a premise. Once again, you do not know the words you are using.

blooming creation leads to sensory overload for human unless he filters out, morally speaking, what's excess beyond what his brain can handle — ucarr

This is senseless. It literally does not mean anything of value to the conversation. It's a claim, across three non-related concepts ('creation', 'sensory overload' and 'morality'). You have not adequate made sense. I'm not sure what else to say - it's not that I disagree; it literally does not make sense and I'm find it really hard not to think you're simply ignoring this so as to not necessarily admit you're waffling (there is precisely nothing wrong with waffling, if you are clear that this is the intention - but even after asking you several times you cannot even distill a point in your claims).

I know my sampled reality is a sham replica standing in for the actual state of affairs of the world, but its the best that I can do in the way of acknowledgement, so I'll stay the course of my jury-rigged reality with as much integrity as I can muster. — ucarr

What are you talking about? You are just constantly saying wildly divergent things with no connection whatever to your substantial points, again, misusing words, violating categories and consistently refusing to be direct. What do you want to talk about????

cosmic logic — ucarr

Again what are you talking about? COSMIC logic? This is profoundly unphilosophical.

I very, very much appreciate your candor and respect through the exchange - I have tried my best to be (personally) gentle, if conceptually rough. So, I really appreciate that.

AmadeusD, I know I have a better chance of winning the lottery than persuading you with anything I write. — ucarr

My dear, dear uCarr, this is not in any way a problem from me. You are entirely failing to make any sense. There is a reason we're not following you well, and it is not our comprehension of stubbornness. I've now, over several days dedicated more than two hours of my time to respond to your posts. I am clearly looking for something substantial, and to suggest otherwise as you are here indicates some sort of dishonesty on your part. Perhaps trying to avoid the charge of making no sense?

IN any case, I also look forward to further! THank you :)

LOL.
I think I'm still curious as to why you, Banno, think there's such a stark ethical difference between the embryo and the person (i assume you're using the concept - not a person of some example that could be given). I agree, but I don't see why it's being put forward as somehow inarguable. Both positions rely on intuition. You say 'apparent', but obviously not to all. So, curious. We certainly agree, even in detail, on what ought be done here from different principles.

If you'd steelman the position, we could avoid these diversions. — Hanover

Not sure what you're asking, or what 'diversion' you're pointing at? What position are you wanting steelmanned? I haven't given 'a position'. I've solved hte problem of identifying a heap. And its not even interesting. Onward...

You can't see how ridiculous it is to say that you agree that it is relevant, but insist that it must be objectively relevant? — Banno

Well, that isn't what i've said. Your position seems to assume not exactly that it must but that it is and that anyone holding those values in, lets say, a different order (hierarchically) is morally suspect. That's just like.. your opinion, man. I'm sure you don't actually disagree (as your question seems to indicate). But, you're acting as if it is objectively relevant. It's just the top of your hierarchy (and mine, coincidentally. But hte only reason I'm pointing to our agreements in this is to avoid your less charitable replies because you can't bring yourself to understand disagreement very well).

Don't discount your view about how you want things to be. — Banno

Definitely. That's not what's an odds, in my little comment. With some small differences, we likely want things to be roughly similar in this regard. Though, I find it quite painful to center myself when thinking about how others 'ought' to be.

Those who think the worth of a bag of cells outweighs that of an adult human are wrong. — Banno

"On my view" would do you a world of good. But, i hear your point and it explains you well. No sarcasm or anything else, there. It's good. Though, this does make me want to ask - surely you're aware that 'the worth of' the two things isn't relevant if you're making decisions on principle (deontologically) alone. I take it those who use the 'sanctity of life' arguments without divinity are on that ground.

I say they are wrong. You and ↪AmadeusD apparently agree, but refuse to put it in those terms. — Banno

Correct. I agree that God people are wrong to believe in their God and the surrounding commitments. But that's not a moral statement, is it? Where I would say, if I held the view "abortion is wrong" its a moral statement.

Even if they were the same, an identity is not empty, nor is it a contradiction. — ucarr

This shows me clearly you are not on the ball. THe are two separate objections, based on the two possible avenues you could claim to be running in. Neither actually works for you, and hte above once again, runs the two together which is exactly what I am pointing out causes a contradiction. So, you're doubling down on 1) denying the contradiction, and 2) adhering to the contradictory form. As before, bizarre.

two different parts of a unified whole — ucarr

No. As also already pointed out, point-blank, without wiggle room - one is the whole is one is a part of that whole. So, again(getting tired of this), you aren't understanding your own claims sufficiently to present them.

Love and War are two sets, both of which contain marriage, home, family and community as members. The members are doubled by symmetry across two countries. — ucarr

I can, somewhat, get on board with the initial conception here, but the underlined is a total non sequitur and doesn't do anything for us. Countries aren't 'real' in the sense needed to divide or inform an abstract 'set' as you want to be doing. That said, I reject the conception of those sets. Your formulations make no sense to me, provide no criteria and are just picking out random, badly-defined (and, in your world, completely stretched, unrecognizable) terms. So, even if you're going to invoke language-use to support some of these readings (acknowledging when you get to it, your argument might be interesting) no one but you, it would seem, could assent to what you're trying to say. This explains why It isn't making any sense, and is almost impossible to follow. The fact I still have this question:

What are you wanting to talk about here?

Tells me you're being insufficient in your attempt to present whatever it is. You're genuinely waffling through most of these replies and I hope there's a point inhere somewhere, as I've now spent much time trying to point out what appears to me intractable issues in what you're doing. Can you perhaps only try to answer that singular question above? It is still not in any way clear what you want to talk about. The closest I can get is statements like this:

The lack of restraint about events and outcomes in the non-living world becomes charged with emotional and, later, moral value when events and outcomes are perceived by sentients. — ucarr

But this is both counter to reality, presupposes several moral 'facts' which I would contend don't, and can't exist, and wants a transitive relation between moral agents and pre-existing states of affairs. This cannot be so. What moral agents do in light of states of affairs can. Those states, however, have no moral charge, worth or indication. They cannot. They are not moral.

And again, the motivation of those who claim that the bag of cells has such value that it must be privileged above the woman carrying it are suspect. They overwhelmingly tend to hold these views becasue they wish to remain in agreement with their invisible friend. They hypocritically support capital punishment. They refuse to provide for the needs of the economically disadvantaged, who are the very people most at risk. They exhibit misogyny and authoritarianism. These facts are supported by repeated demographic studies. — Banno

Are you entirely sure hte move you want to make is to talk about hte aggregate of the vulgar, rather than the arguments actually at hand? I don't disagree with you at all, regardless of the studies - they seem the only arguments that one can rely on for that position to me too. But, I'm not seeing any of htem in this thread, I guess. And once again, I'll point out:

the interests and preferences of the person carrying are much more apparent than those of the zygot or cyst or foetus — Banno

Isn't objectively relevant. I agree that it's relevant, but that's because I agree that its relevant. If I didn't, it wouldn't. And in that situation, there's no real 'argument'. They are two intuitions butting heads, surely.

In reverse:

That wont solve the problem of disagreement, which is, in fact, the problem (i.e not having a precise point to rely on isn't a problem, if we were all to accept the grey area is "up to her" as it were). Arguments (and murders) about abortion in the grey area will still occur.

If you have a heap of rice consisting of 10,000,000 grains, you're not properly approaching hte problem.

If you have a heap of eight grains of rice, the proper point at which is becomes a heap, is when at least one grain is no longer on the surface, and is entirely supported by other grains. It is that grain that you're looking for. Not all sorities can be resolved in this way, certainly. But this one can, and I knew it would be example :P

the Sorites paradox — Michael

Just a random note on this: You can find criteria for a heap.

n order to continue your attack, you have to attack my defense quoted above. You have to show why my thesis is still contradictory, even in light of my defense. — ucarr

I've already directly responded to it. Having shown, by pure juxtaposition, that your two claims are either empty, as they are the same claim, or literally contradict one another, I need do nothing else.

Philosophers who are arguing for direct realism are not always at odds with the science. The comment is directed at those hereabouts insisting that they are. — Banno

Yes, fair. I think that's what I'm groking from your directions (plus some further digging). It doesn't quite shift my position though, as that wasn't quite the motivator for it in the way it seems to be for Michael (although, I'm quite sympathetic there). I don't need direct realists to be in conflict with the science for my position to hold philosophically, I don't think. But it helps, where I can use it.


:up: It is, at this point, feeling that way

I think part of the problem is that some here think that "I see a tree" and "I directly see a tree" mean the same thing, when in fact the adverb "directly" modifies the verb "see". — Michael

Yeah. I think it fairly clear (and this from canvassing hte use of 'direct' in all contexts I'm aware of it's usage in) that using 'direct' to cover a literally indirect method of access (we can invoke the Shadow idea, on top of pretending we're Direct Realists proper to illustrate why this is so) is not helpful. But, if the case is such that this means its a 'misuse for a better cause' as it were, and resolves teh problem by accepting this 'indirectness' but not admitting it separates us from the world... fine.