Do remember I'm only positing that human and person are coextensive. I understand the distinction between the two concepts.

However, it's up to you to demonstrate why the term "person" should be defined by metacognition. As far as I'm aware, I've never been self-aware while sleeping, and in fact, a great amount of the time I'm awake and thinking, I'm not self-aware. Sure, I'm rational, but I'm not constantly making a mental note of my own existence; it comes as a given.

I simply think that resolving personhood around metacognition leaves us to ambiguities and unprecedented terms of (lack of) human dignity (by human beings).



Well, yes, I am, but you must understand my definition of soul; "the animating principle of a living being."

So, if something's living and a being, then it has a soul, naturally.

I argue for this on the basis of essence, again; I gained my humanity and being at the moment of conception, and since then I have not essentially changed. I have always remained the same human since the union of my father's sperm with my mother's egg. Anything else that has changed since are only accidental features, including my level of metacognition (which has increased, and I daresay it will increase more in years to come).

Now, you must know that a human soul is distinct from an animal or plant soul. However, this distinction is based only on our special place in creation by the intent of God. If I can't argue on the basis of God, then I couldn't make any moral argument intelligible.



Well naturally. Hence a human soul has an infinitely greater moral value than animal souls on the basis of our immortality (via God).



That's good. Having a rational debate on abortion is a welcome change; I don't have to keep dealing with emotionalism.

I am totally, hands down, against abortion.

No matter what, nobody can change my mind.

i would say that metacognition is the creation of a self-aware identity. sure, the being is not always self-aware, but the identity is present. this established identity is what i would call a "person". so to kill some while they're sleeping and not aware of the self is to kill a person/self-established identity.

i guess it all comes down to whether or not one believes in souls and whether or not our souls have greater value.

This post has been edited by Tickitytak: Nov 6 2009, 01:29 AM

My question is simple; Why?

What's so special about metacognition?

There seems to be reason to doubt definitions of personhood dependent upon intuitions. For instance, there are those who argue against abortion because the fetus is intuitively a person; and there are those who make the exact same argument, but that they are for abortion because the fetus is intuitively not a person. Why should we trust your intuition about metacognition? Why shouldn't we trust our intuition about our ability to recognize what we perceive as human? Why not the intuition that what is human is a person? [note: not making the argument that a human is intuitively a person]

Alright! I love Christian boards! Let's put some scripture in this board! when does the baby have life in it? Let's see what the bible has to say about it:



hmm, it(the bible) seems to say that the life is in the blood, so when does the body have blood in it? However, that's the life, to us, but not the life to God, lets see when God thinks the life starts:



Well it seems from that scripture.. well shoot, make up your own mind, you hate it when I interpret the scripture for you, so you interpret it, ask God what He meant when He wrote that passage.

p.s. also, if you're looking, for a place that tells you whether or not, it's good or bad to have an abortion, then I can tell you by the scriptures, that it is bad. why? Because it's making your God given conscience act up, it wouldn't be doing that if it wasn't bad. :/

p.p.s. also I just happen to notice this, how many days old did it say you had to be?

well how else could one comprehend their own identity without being aware of their own consciousness? is the self present even if it is not self-aware? as far as i'm concerned, the self cannot manifest without awareness of itself.

i would say that everything in the universe is sentient on some level, including a fetus, but we humans have progressed beyond just sentience to a point where we are actually aware or conscious of our own sentience. isn't this when the self is created? if the self is nothing more than sentience, doesn't that diminish our human dignity more than stating that the fetus is not yet a person (one who has recognized the self)? there would be nothing else that makes our humanity more significant than any other creature on this planet aside from an acceptance of circular reasoning (i.e. God says we're the most important).

not that i advocate the idea of human dignity, but my argument for abortion would certainly support it much more than saying we are no different than a fetus (and thereby no different from any other lifeform that is just as simplistic).

How can we measure whether someone does or doesn't apprehend their own consciousness? We know that fetuses do many things we never thought to describe them with; they can learn, react to stimulation, etc. Down to the zygotal level, they are surprisingly more "alive" than we thought. They are a so-called "self," even if not yet metacognitive at that point.

You still need to demonstrate that there isn't a self without metacognition. Even if I didn't recognize myself before I recognized myself, that doesn't mean others hadn't already; but that is to make someone's self dependent upon subjective recognition, which is prima facie indefensible. It's tautological ("I'm a self because I recognize my-self"), circular, and subjective.



The self is in being. While all things we know of to exist are "in being" (with the exception of God, but just skip that for now), and so everything can be reduced to being (even our metacognition), this doesn't in itself detract from our inherent dignity.

The problem with your position is that you ascribe intrinsic dignity to a subjective feature that cannot be in any way meaningfully measured. Either we must conclude by your premises that dignity is artificial, or that your premise is wrong.



"God says so" isn't circular reasoning. Certainly you are aware of foundational or basic truths?

Anyhow, if we are only able to defend the assertion that humans are more significant because we are made that way by God, then so be it. It isn't a postulate I'm afraid of, since I already admit that my being contingently hinges on God's eternality and free will.



It seems that you're assuming here that the difference between me and a fetus is no different between me and any other life form. Frankly, this is very wrong; the difference between me and a whale (which is more complex than I am in all empirically verifiable ways) is DNA. The difference between me and a fetus is accidental; location, age, size, metacognition, etc.

i could look at lamp and give it a personality, a name and play with it. i have subjectively given the lamp a "self", but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a person. when it comes to actual living beings, i think the self manifests once it can clarify to itself its own awareness of its sentience. one question i've struggled with is whether or not a language is required for self-awareness. assuming language is not required, wouldn't a human without any language be just as aware of its own sentience as an animal? how could it clarify to itself its own awareness?


well, i do consider our dignity to be artificial and entirely subjective.


i would say it is circular, but that's because i'm not a christian. it's certainly a matter of belief at that point.


well i strictly meant in a cognitive sense. i'm pretty sure most humans are more advanced than whales in that aspect. if our own cognitive ability makes us no better than a basic life form, there's really nothing else that would dignify our species (from a non-religious perspective).


so does God not give a conscience to psychopaths?

The lamp couldn't possibly recognize it-self. A fetus possibly could. A huge difference.



Then your input in this discussion is inherently worthless because its arbitrary.



If we were to know that our dignity revolves around our metacognition, then perhaps it could be a good marker. But we don't know.

If someone replies, don't expect a reply back from me. I just really like this verse and thought I should throw it out there for that whole 'does life begin at conception?' thing.

This post has been edited by Adonvara: Nov 9 2009, 01:21 AM

but the fetus (like the lamp) doesn't initially recognize the self, so they are the same at that point, in that aspect.


if worth and worthlessness are just human concepts, my input is objectively both and neither.


it would just be an accepted belief that's not necessarily true.

In that aspect, yes. As a whole, they are still radically different; hence even though my solving a math problem is in this aspect identical to a computer solving said math problem, me and the computer are radically different.



If it isn't necessarily true in our understanding of being and intrinsic inviolable dignity, then it isn't possibly true.

How come people have problems with the death of a fetus but not the death of say a cow? Is not all life equally important?

And a pop fly, out of left field!

No, the lives of other species are not as important as ones own species is.

But that is an apriori truth; something held true without objective evidence. There's no real evidence that one form of life is more or less important than another.

There doesn't need to be. Real life is not some drawn out philosophy lecture. We are driven by our desire to propagate our species; this truth overrules any moral conundrums we make come up with about other animals. If they want to not be eaten by us, they should try harder.

There's no evidence that one form of life holds more value than another.

There's also no universal scale of worth; so why even say something so pointless? Evidence of worth is nonexistent completely. There's no reason to believe that anything has inherent value.

That said, again, life is not a college philosophy class. I don't care that animals might be upset that I think I'm better than them. It's not my fault my species has opposable thumbs with which we build meat grinders.

ummm...other than the fact that God himself made us in his own image. I don't think he did that for an animal. Oh and the fact that Adam got to name all the animals. Also after the flood God said that the animals were there for us to use however we needed...

"ummm...other than the fact that God himself made us in his own image. I don't think he did that for an animal. Oh and the fact that Adam got to name all the animals. Also after the flood God said that the animals were there for us to use however we needed."

it. Is. An. Allegory. It's delusional to think God is thiis anthropomorphized version of ourselves. Adam did not name all animals; there are animals being discovered every year. Zoologists name them. and if we decided we needed baby seals for their luxurious furr as a way to make a social status statement, God wants us to club and slaughter as many as we want even if it means the inevitable extinction of their species? Yeah I'm sure God wants us to do that.

"There's also no universal scale of worth; so why even say something so pointless? Evidence of worth is nonexistent completely. There's no reason to believe that anything has inherent value.

That said, again, life is not a college philosophy class. I don't care that animals might be upset that I think I'm better than them. It's not my fault my species has opposable thumbs with which we build meat grinders."

Well good luck to you and such egocentricism.

It hasn't let us down yet.

Tell that to all the people who it has let down.

Ok. Hey, guys who apparently exist, it hasn't let us down yet.

Thank you. You may now enter.

It may be an Allegory, but still I don't think there is even an allegory about God creating animals in his own image.



This doesn't prove anything that I said wrong. I was saying that killing a fetus is different than killing an animal because HUMANS have named them. Adam just did most of it so thats what I used.



Please stop twisting my words...I didn't say we could use them for something so just annoying. God gave us animals for what we needed. So we CAN kill them for food, this is completely different from a fetus.

Genesis 9:2-3

All the wild animals, large and small and all the birds and fish will be afraid of you. I have placed them in your power. I have given them to you for food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables.

Here are just a few verses I found about abortion. I wanna see what everyone has to say...

Psalm 51:5 I was born a sinner yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.

Jeremiah 1:5 I knew you before I formed you in your mothers womb.

This post has been edited by purplemunster94: Nov 10 2009, 10:25 PM