Why is a DNA-based definition too broad? For reasons already mentioned by other posters.
Why is mathematical-ability-based definition too narrow? Clearly this is an interesting question as far as I'm concerned. — Agent Smith
Then you’re not answering the question. “Mammal” is also broad. It’s also true. Is that a satisfying answer to the question “what makes a human being a human being?” I don’t think so. — Xtrix
The problem as I see it is that no single trait humans have a potential for are manifested in all of us — Agent Smith
Not all eagles fly. Should we throw out the term “eagle”? — Xtrix
What is the need for a definition of human in order to properly educate children? — Jackson
The Turing Test doesn't specify the definition of a human being. I believe even garden variety computers can mimic a small child with above-average language skills. Truth be told, my laptop with the appropriate software could mimic a deranged or a specially-abled person. — Agent Smith
Given this is the case— yes, it’s narrow. But rightfully so— because you’re asking a narrow question: what is a human being? If we were asking “what is an animal?” then we could give human beings as an example. Or living thing. Or mammal. Or primate. But we’re not doing that— we’re asking specifically about one class of beings. — Xtrix
We are just on a planet. Not much more to it. — Jackson
I think how we prepare our children for life is about much more than being on a planet. If we destroy this planet and take good care of it, matters a lot.
Chardin said "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man."
It is no longer the gods in charge but it is what we make it. — Athena
Still seems not to help us decide what it is to be human in a way that suits — Banno
My approach was to ask instead what it was that made humans of ethical value. The answer is that they have been set aside as holy and therefore occupy a different metaphysical place in the world. — Hanover
That worth does not derive from their relation to a god or gods, or to a background of spiritual discourse. It does not depend on any discourse. The moral worth of humans is not derived, but intrinsic. — Banno
What exactly does it rest upon? — Tom Storm
"Moral worth" is not my favourite term. "Ethical standing" might be better.
"Intrinsic value" might be thought to imply that values are found, but that's exactly wrong. — Banno
is there a preferred philosophical approach to resolve a difference of views? — Tom Storm
You must have noticed by now that philosophy is not of much help in deciding between the various systems of ethics. All it can do is set out the relationships between them. — Banno
But we are social, and ethics is a political act. — Banno
Though it is not often made explicit, in the end the demise of the Liberal Party is down to their moral failure ("lack of ethical standing"); to not looking at the greater interest of out common wealth, apparent in climate denial, cronyism , pork barrelling, non-action on corruption, cruelty to refugees and the poor (robodebt), and so on.
Ethical considerations have a way of rising to the top. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.