Submitted by ADefiniteDescription t3_10k8y95 in philosophy
Comments
frank_prajna t1_j5pso05 wrote
Can you explain to me how exactly a legal entity can gain personhood?
A corporation doesn't actually exist in any tangible way, it represents people working within a structure towards common goals...
Does having a logo make you a person?
I don't follow.
corporatestateinc t1_j5py8wp wrote
Corporations in the US, believe it or not, are persons. Though human foetuses and cetaceans, for example, are not. Really its so corporations can make claims, and have claims made against them
frank_prajna t1_j5q0vkn wrote
I understand that they have been declared as such...
Corporations and Government should both serve persons, making them people is stupid.
By making a corporation the same as a person you're essentially saying they have the right to exist, that we must buy their shit or they'll die... but that's how capitalism works.
If your product isn't useful you don't get a business.
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qbxbn wrote
Personhood is a legal construct. Its other things too, but the legal construct of personhood is where the rubber hits the road for enforcing rights, duties, privileges, etc.
Hippopotamidaes t1_j5qkzbo wrote
Ontically personhood has been and is used as a legal construct.
We can also consider personhood in a metaphysical sense.
frank_prajna t1_j5qet7j wrote
I'm saying, a company shouldn't have rights or benefits, it should have obligations only.
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qjryo wrote
Corporations shouldn't have the same rights as natural persons, but some rights are essential for practical reasons...
Off the top of my head: due process, excessive fines, right to form contracts, right to sue and be sued, right to own property, and right to counsel come to mind. First amendment is tricky, but hopefully we agree that the government shouldn't be able to censor newspapers, publishers or book stores.
Without these rights, corporate entities (including schools and non-profits) would cease to exist, but I think we agree that corporations shouldn't have the same rights as human beings.
[deleted] t1_j5qnxns wrote
[deleted]
frank_prajna t1_j5qoy00 wrote
A corporation is never responsible for anything, those actually responsible should be punished and have these protections...
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qqfr8 wrote
Easier said than done. Who pays for the medical care of people injured by a defective product? The inventor, the manufacturer, or the salesman? Maybe all of them? Maybe someone else? If it's one or more individual, there probably won't be enough money to give all the victims the medical care they need and deserve.
The (main) point of a corporation is to consolidate the risks in one entity, the one who paid those people's salaries and directly profited from the product. In some situations the individuals can be personally responsible too, but that's generally very difficult to establish under the law.
CoderDispose t1_j5qubqw wrote
> The inventor, the manufacturer, or the salesman?
Even more importantly, let's say it's the manufacturer. The problem occurred because a software test fail was not noticed. Who's fault is it then? The developer who wrote the bug? What about the people who did the code review? Maybe the tester who didn't bring it up after the fact? etc. etc. etc.
frank_prajna t1_j5qy1qq wrote
Whoever made the decision to sell the product before it was ready.
No one in the line making the product is responsible, no one inventing or selling is responsible... we don't have a system where they're the ones bringing it to market.
CEO's get the big bucks, why do they get protections for not doing their job?
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5r00q2 wrote
Our system is not designed the way you think it should be. There's some variability between different countries, but for the most part every nation adheres to the principles I've outlined. At this point, all I can do is tell you to go to law school or audit torts and corporations so you can raise these points with subject matter experts.
frank_prajna t1_j5r1x8v wrote
You understand laws can be changed?
These will seem like atrocious notions one day.
ShalmaneserIII t1_j5r0oeu wrote
That doesn't work. That would mean a corporation has an obligation to pay its employees, but not a right to sue someone who refuses to pay for a good or service, or the ability to own things.
frank_prajna t1_j5r2etx wrote
These people are making entirely too much money to have no liability.
frank_prajna t1_j5r2647 wrote
Again, people are making the decisions.
That's the difference between them and a company.
People are doing fucked up things because ultimately nothing will happen to them and the stock holders will be happy.
bumharmony t1_j5t13ma wrote
To my understanding personhood is in simplicity the abilities that makes an agent: the ability to create and follow rules and create a conception of good. And it is the atomistic type of self. Indivisible. That is why governments, companies or states cannot be persons because they can be divided into smaller pieces and most likely parts of them are ignored in a majority rule type of situations. So therefore to me representative democracy fails already for that reason.
WhittlingDan t1_j5qtm8u wrote
If corporations are people is the government a person?
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qw76a wrote
As with most legal questions, the correct answer is "it depends."
For certain purposes, the federal government is a person: U.S. v. The Cooper Corp., (1941).
In some contexts, city/county governments are, but state or federal governments are not because they are sovereigns. Cook County v. U.S. ex rel Chandler, (2003). This actually makes sense because most municipalities are "incorporated" in the sense that they're creatures of state law.
WhittlingDan t1_j5qtcrw wrote
How long have corporations been a concept and how did it start? I read that up until the early 1900s incorporation was something granted to businesses as a temporary status to product them in special circumstances and that businesses were never supposed to be corporations permanently.
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qxpdk wrote
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 481 (1819) arguably marks the beginning of the shift in sentiment. In colonial America, corporate charters were often time limited and required renewal, but the Dartmouth case essentially recognized the possibility that a corporation could be structured to exist in continuity and that subsequent governments could be limited in their ability to revoke a charter unless the original charter said they could. I'm pretty sure "permanent corporations" were not unusual by the late 19th century, but this isn't my area of expertise.
kgbking t1_j5sp7gc wrote
>In colonial America
When did America stop being colonial?
AlanMorlock t1_j5sutnn wrote
Several British colonies declared themselves as states independent from Britain and formed a new country. Fought a whole war about it.
pgb04001 t1_j5twib8 wrote
Yes, historians often refer to the Colonial Era, The Early Republic, Antebellum, etc., but the US came into existence as a colonial power, expanded across the continent, and then grew in military, economic, and cultural strength. It was and remains a colonial power.
WhittlingDan t1_j5uox6k wrote
We stoped being British but colonialism is something else. It's the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. The term country is used loosely and applies to Native American tribes and land.
AlanMorlock t1_j5upb4a wrote
We remain a settler state but int the way it iwas used "Colonial America" has a pretty commonly understood time frame that it encompasses and its less useful to try to be pedantic about it.
Nenor t1_j5snqsc wrote
It's a foundational decision for a legal system, for sure. But, having legal personhood for companies has a lot more benefits than drawbacks.
For example, if we didn't decide to have it, then it wouldn't be possible for companies to enter intro contracts. It would have to be just be one (or more) person signing the contract in his name. The companies wouldn't be able to buy equipment, it would have to be owned by certain individuals in the company. But since these individuals cannot enter a labor contract with it, they can leave at any time, taking the equipment.
Without personhood, you would also forgo the concept of limited liability. Thus, every investor would be fully liable for all debts of the company, not just the amount they want to invest.
Without personhood, you are also unable to sue companies. You would have to sue individuals.
There are plenty of other examples, but these are the most important ones.
JonBonFucki t1_j5t1ure wrote
all of those examples are good for capitalism and bad for society. that actually checks out for why we have them though.
Nenor t1_j5t9qxy wrote
Strongly disagree. What good would it be for society, if you cannot sue a company? What about the consumption of all goods and services that society needs, which will not be produced without companies? Without it, basically everyone will need to fend for themselves about everything - produce their own food, own machines, own railroads, own airplanes, ships, cars, etc. (which will not happen, so society will have to make do without any of it). And for what? What benefit would we gain by letting go of this? Cannot think of much, certainly nothing material enough to warrant a serious consideration.
JonBonFucki t1_j5ueyr0 wrote
You made some wild conjecture here. I did not say that companies should not exist. But you cannot prove that a company needs to be a person in order to produce things. At least you have not tried to. People own companies. People can enter into contracts. People can be sued. The only thing a company getting to be a person does is protect the people that run the company from the liability of their actions.
Solutide t1_j60ne89 wrote
No it does not protect the people that “run” the company, it protect the people that “own” the company.
JonBonFucki t1_j63f6i1 wrote
a distinction without a difference but thanks for your interesting addition. Have you never heard of a board of directors removing a CEO based on shareholder votes? That's running the company by the people who own it.
Solutide t1_j6c1x54 wrote
How is that running the company? By your logic, the president is voted by the American people, that mean to the people is running the government? That is called exercising ownership right. The shareholders don’t run the company, but they have limited control over it. You either lack the most basic understanding of how corporate ownership(and ownership in general) work or are being willfully ignorant to support your flimsy argument.
JonBonFucki t1_j6ijwel wrote
Are you talking about America? The country once described as Of the People, By the People, For the People. That country? The people aren't running that government? Stop proving my points and work on your own.
Solutide t1_j6jq5j1 wrote
How is that slogan equal to the people making all the decisions of the government? What do you think “running” something mean? If you own a car, then you lend that car to friend to drive, who do you think is driving the goddam car? Just bcs you own the car, and have the right to take back the car if you so choose, doesn’t mean you are “running” the car. And if your friend kill someone with your car without your knowledge, you don’t take responsibility for your friend action. Does that make sense? Or I suggest you go read a book or something. Its not my job to be your teacher.
JonBonFucki t1_j6kg9aa wrote
thank goodness that's not your job. I don't have any interest in baseless conjecture and whining.
WhittlingDan t1_j5qswv2 wrote
Can you murder a corporation? Can a corporation be put in prison or executed? Why can they be sold or owned by individuals if they have personhood?
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qyq1m wrote
Corporations can be dissolved under certain circumstances, that's effectively what happened to Arthur Anderson after the Enron scandal. 13A bans slavery and involuntary servitude, and 14th amendment applies to persons born or naturalized in the USA, neither of which restricts the ability to own a corporation. Moreover, one doesn't "own" a corporation, but rather one owns shares in the corporation. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, or at least it was until Citizens United...
Anathos117 t1_j5qzsqd wrote
> or at least it was until Citizens United...
Citizens United had nothing to do with corporate personhood. The decision was based on the idea that if a group of people pool their money they shouldn't suddenly lose their right to free speech. And the decision didn't even cover all corporations, just unions and non-profits that were strictly political in nature.
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5r1hhv wrote
It's a subtle distinction, but you're right. However, I would say that describing a corporation as an association of natural persons is just a theory of "corporate personhood" by another name.
I don't think there's a functional difference between restricting a sovereign's ability to distinguish between the rights held by natural vs. corporate persons and re-characterizing corporations as associations of natural persons that are entitled to the same rights as it's constituent members.
Edit: although the decision didn't apply directly to for-profit corporation, this only required those entities to establish a subsidiary entity to aggregate donations. It's a distinction without a difference.
Anathos117 t1_j5r5ots wrote
> However, I would say that describing a corporation as an association of natural persons is just a theory of "corporate personhood" by another name.
I wouldn't. Think about it this way: what if you wanted to put out a political ad? You obviously don't have enough money yourself. But if you and 10,000 of your closest friends pooled your money, you could. But how do you store all that money while you're collecting it? How do you spend it? If you give it to Fred no strings attached, there's nothing stopping Fred from keeping the money for himself. So you need some mechanism that gives Fred conditional access to the money so he can only spend it on the political ad. We call that mechanism a "corporation".
Citizens United recognized that the only practical way for people to engage in certain exercises of their rights was collectively, so restrictions on corporations specifically formed for political purposes were necessarily infringements on the rights of individuals.
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5r7lmt wrote
That's how I originally thought the court would rule. A decision that permits aggregating small donations while rejecting unlimited donations from for-profit entities was floated by the FEC and explicitly rejected by the court. In other words, SCOTUS explicitly rejected a decision that would allow for your hypo but would restrict unlimited donations from for-profit companies. (Read section II D of the opinion, I don't have pincites).
Anathos117 t1_j5ra9w6 wrote
Did you actually read the argument though? The alternatives available to the Supreme Court were to strike down so many laws and rulings that for-profit companies could directly engage in electioneering, or carve out an exemption so conditional that it effectively wouldn't be useful for anyone else, therefore infringing on rights it shouldn't. And the Court couldn't find against Citizens United after the FEC made clear that they believed they could and would censor political books in the wake of such a decision.
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5rd56y wrote
I believe that a conditional exemption would have been consistent with judicial minimalism, stare decisis, and deference to a coequal branch.
Personally, I think Citizen's United is an intentionally overbroad ruling that's predicated on creating a false choice and erring on the side of our corporate overlords (look at their waiver analysis and tell me it's applied the same way in other cases).
I also think they entirely devalued the interests in actual corruption, perceived corruption, and foreign interference.
Anathos117 t1_j5rdsaq wrote
> Personally, I think Citizen's United is an intentionally overbroad ruling that's predicated on creating a false choice and erring on the side of our corporate overlords (look at their waiver analysis and tell me it's applied the same way in other cases).
That's a far different statement than your original claim that "Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, or at least it was until Citizens United..."
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5rfajm wrote
My argument: Citizens United characterized corporations as "associations of citizens" to reach a result that is functionally equivalent to saying corporations have 1A rights so long as they use a third party entity. This holding was not dictated by precedent, and the court consciously rejected an approach that would have adjudicated the question in Citizen's United's favor on narrower grounds without doing violence to the primary purpose of the statute(s) in question.
ShalmaneserIII t1_j5r1558 wrote
If the corporate charter gets revoked, it ceases to exist.
But then you have the problem of what to do with the assets.
kgbking t1_j5spghe wrote
I like your questions
MajorTim1100 t1_j5qsboi wrote
Laws and stuff are different, isn't this article just using a debate about laws to talk about some basic philosophy or the like.
lunartree t1_j5ssmcf wrote
> its just philosobabble
To translate into a more specific argument: this debate operates solely within the realm of metaphysics which is completely detached from the real world material issues tied up in the social construct of personhood. This means that debate on this matter will not reveal applicable wisdom to the real world problems that the concept of personhood relates to. This then makes the reader question what is the purpose of spending time having this conversation.
[deleted] t1_j5qjwbo wrote
[removed]
Uncivilized_Elk t1_j5tdqv6 wrote
Corporations aren't people just because the law of a profoundly stupid country wants to pretend they are.
If a country declares that people of a certain ethnicity aren't legally people, I'm not gonna fucking acknowledge such idiocy because the law says so either. That's arguably a more extreme example, but it's the same principle. Nobody should be fucking okay with corporatations being labeled as people unless they're literally an evil corporate figurehead (I realize the "evil" in there is redundant) or the politicians who serve the corporations.
Enlightened_Ape t1_j5ph76w wrote
Why don't we just make some specific laws concerning "non-human persons"?
AhmedF t1_j5q1j5c wrote
Because you have to define it all from scratch (legally). Personhood has a lot of laws built around it as is.
Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qbi39 wrote
The article notes several countries that have declared certain animals to be non-human persons, and the notion of corporate person is widely recognized.
If "we" refers to the USA, there isn't the political will to extend these rights to animals such as elephants or primates for many reasons (eg., Voter apathy, special interest groups that use animal testing, zoos, etc.).
Even if one sovereign decided to grant some animals personhood, that wouldn't necessarily be recognized outside that jurisdiction (e.g., two nations, state vs. federal govt.), so they would likely only be a "person" in specific contexts.
stumblewiggins t1_j5q58yn wrote
New laws require legislative acts, which are hard enough to get for uncontroversial things that a majority of people want.
The activists took the legal approach because there was potential to get the goal they wanted without legislation. A judge could have theoretically ruled that Happy constitutes a legal person, and was thus entitled to the protections afforded to legal persons. They didn't, but they could have.
I suspect that if not the activists involved in this example, some activists are working on getting legislation passed, but this probably seemed like a tactic worth trying as well.
Plutonic-Planet-42 t1_j5qqfnb wrote
Clearly corporations are people and deserve the same respect as humans.
ShalmaneserIII t1_j5r086c wrote
Arguably, you're not wrong, if by "respect" you mean how someone is treated.
If you expect to engage in transactional relationships with people to further your own ends, will obey explicitly agreed-upon rules but have no implicit ones, and have no particular concerns for the persons' wellbeing beyond those, you will treat humans and corporations the same.
chrandberry t1_j5qwy35 wrote
My view as an animal rights litigator who was one of the attorneys behind a federal judge declaring Colombian hippopotamuses to be legal “persons” for the limited purpose of being able to apply for a subpoena in the United States:
The word “person” has many different understandings depending on the context, and this is the source of much confusion.
The common usage of the word “person” equates being a person with being a human. And people starting with that common understanding will naturally tend to think that being a “legal person” means having the same (or similar) legal rights as a human.
The problem with that definition of a legal person though is that even between humans legal rights and duties vary dramatically. Compare the legal rights that a U.S. court would give a non-citizen infant who is located in another country (the right to travel here maybe, the right to apply for asylum maybe) with the legal rights that U.S. court would recognize for an adult who is a citizen. And even between adults who are citizens, some may not be able to drive if they can’t pass a driver’s test, and some may even be sujbect to getting killed by the government if they were found guilty of murder in some jurisdictions in the U.S. Consider further the differences between legal rights of humans in the U.S. based on age, incarceration status, what state they live in, and whether they are currently elected to public office in the government with the right to vote on or sign legislation into law for example.
Additionally, this view of legal personhood as being roughly the same as having the same legal rights as a human does not make sense as-applied to corporations. Corporations can be bought, sold, and owned. Corporations can be terminated by a vote of the board, or by a state’s Secretary of State for failing to comply with proper paperwork like renewing registration every year. At the same time, it is useful for corporations to have some legal rights and duties. A corporation can enter into a contract to take out a loan or construct a new office building, and it makes more sense for the corporation to do that than for one of its employees to have to personally apply for a loan or personally sign a contract to build a new office building. It is also useful to be able to sue corporations when they do things like rip us off or hurt us illegally. Where we get into trouble is actually when we conflate corporate personhood with human personhood and give them the right to donate money for political speech and the right to freedom of religion that arguably should only go to individual humans and not to corporate entities.
So what is legal personhood and when should it be recognized? I contend that legal personhood just means that a court recognizes that you have some legal right(s) and/or obligation(s) that can be enforced in court. Essentially, that you have a legal “personality” and the ability to be a litigant in a lawsuit. So really the key questions are whether the law recognizes that a given entity has some legal interest that must (or should) be recognized by courts.
By that definition, I’d argue that animals already are legal persons, albeit in a very weak sense. Animal cruelty laws exist in all fifty states to protect animals from unjustified neglect and abuse. That is clearly a legal interest and legal right that animals possess in my view. Therefore, courts should recognize that animals have legal interests and legal standing to be litigants in legal proceedings relating to enforcement of laws intended to protect animals. We should be asking courts to do that, courts should be recognizing that animals have legal rights and legal personality, and to the extent courts fail to do this legislatures should step in and correct courts.
ETA: Under that framework, the question of legal personhood at least is really an empirical question about whether the entity in question has legal interests that can be the subject of legal proceedings. There is a slight normative dimension to the question as well though to the extent that the issue has not been unequivocally decided in a jurisdiction a judge will have to ask “should or does the law recognize that this entity is a legal person for purposes of this dispute?” That kind of brings us into the territory of asking what is the nature of law: is it judges somewhat just making stuff up as they go (legal realism / more normative) or is it judges dutifully applying the law to the situation at hand (legal positivism / more empirical). But that’s a whole other discussion.
token-black-dude t1_j5pex6f wrote
Why is it relevant, whether or not elephants share cognitive abilities with humans such as self-awareness, empathy, awareness of death, and learning?
Being a smart elephant doesn't make an elephant human, it's still a smart elephant?
bac5665 t1_j5pkl5h wrote
Because those cognitive abilities are what determine ethical duties owed to that elephant. Being human is meaningless. If you go back down your family tree, parent to child to parent to child, back 5 million years, you'll have an unbroken chain, where each person on that chain is the same as the thousands on either side of it in that chain. But the end would not count as a human. It would be an australopithecine or similar animal.
The point is that species are artificial labels that have no moral weight. It must be emotional and intellectual capacity that creates moral weight. (Or divine command theory, but fortunately we have no reason to believe in that hellish possibility). To base morality off of arbitrary species labels is simply not intellectually supportable.
And because these traits are not fixed, but rather on a sliding scale, it stands to reason that personhood is on a scale as well. Just like how it's a crime to torture a dog but not to torture a flea. That distinction isn't due to some Platonic nonsense about how Dogs are imbued by the universe with rights. It's based on the individual traits of dogs, generally, compared to fleas, generally. If you found a flea that appeared somehow to have the mind of a dog, it's obvious to me that it would be due the same moral treatment that a dog is due.
Skarr87 t1_j5puzk7 wrote
I believe it can be dangerous to base treatment of an organism on its cognitive ability alone. Say if I had greater cognitive ability than another human to the extent that the difference between me and that human was greater than the difference of that human and a flea then what justification could be given for me to not treat them as they would treat a flea? I believe my treatment of other organisms should be determined by that organism’s capacity to suffer from whatever action I am taking against it and whether that action is necessary. It’s intelligence or emotional depth shouldn’t matter ethically in my opinion. It is my belief that because humans have a tendency to treat other people and animals that are more similar to them better we also tend to frame that justification through a similar lens which is the incorrect justification.
I agree with 99% of what you said. It’s just at the last part my justification would be if the flea is capable of experiencing suffering equal to the dog is what would give me moral considerations for its treatment.
UncleGizmo t1_j5pwjn8 wrote
You have just outlined the conundrum that many philosophies and religions try to justify or explain. A buddhist may say harming a flea and a dog are equal because we are all connected, whereas some Christian faiths delineate between humans and “lesser animals”.
It’s also why it’s not so simple to define “personhood”, as the post indicates.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j5q5r26 wrote
What is the conundrum? Don't kill stuff. Feed everything. Farm a ton of food. Easy.
Plutonic-Planet-42 t1_j5qrpqj wrote
So easy!
Let bacteria proliferate, don’t vaccinate, leave the tumours, and stop cleaning and eradicating 99% of all germs!
You’re being speciesist if you don’t guarantee omicron more hosts!
RandomNumsandLetters t1_j5r35gu wrote
Don't kill stuff? Farming kills lots of tiny animals in the ground, why is it OK?
TarantinoFan23 t1_j5r625c wrote
Its only partly okay,for now. If you appreciate their sacrifice, don't treat them poorly, and strive to create a better world without the need to subsist on other beings.
Edit: The people we eat for food today, will hopefully see they were an essential part of making the world a better place for whatever family they have left(that we didn't eat).
swampshark19 t1_j5qitze wrote
If there was a person who does not experience any form of pain, meaning they do not suffer, by your conditions it would be justifiable to kill them.
JonBonFucki t1_j5t2fh0 wrote
don't forget the fact that pain and suffering as we understand them cannot continue past death so technically anyone suffering in pain can have their life improved by killing them.
token-black-dude t1_j5q5vvj wrote
> I believe my treatment of other organisms should be determined by that organism’s capacity to suffer from whatever action I am taking against it and whether that action is necessary.
I don't think this a reasonable or practical perspective. I care more about one of my kids scraping his knee, than the death of a starving child on the other side of the world, and even if they do not admit it when asked, so does everybody else, who do nothing while our society perpetuates a situation where we let starving children die. We as a society are certainly not treating people or animals according to their capacity for suffering.
tjscobbie t1_j5sth8z wrote
You care more because evolution has saddled you with a half-baked, if any, morality. The whole reason we do philosophy and have these discussions is to transcend what we arbitrarily feel.
Peacedude95 t1_j5suz43 wrote
This really highlights the problem with a utilitarian approach to morality. It is not practically possible to even measure the suffering of every person influenced by a single choice. We tend to restrict the individuals we consider when making a moral choic3 to make it manageable
MouseBean t1_j5q05x0 wrote
>Because those cognitive abilities are what determine ethical duties owed to that elephant...It must be emotional and intellectual capacity that creates moral weight.
No they don't. Ethics has nothing to do with cognitive ability. Moral value is a property of systems, not individuals, and the ethical significance of individuals comes from their role in maintaining this systemic value. Ethical significance has to do with relationships, not experiences. And all living things have these relationships, every living thing has ancestors, every living thing reproduces, every living thing eats, and every living thing is eaten.
Humans or other animals are not any more significant in this regard than other organisms.
There are plenty of other alternatives to suffering-based morality that are not divine command theory.
AhmedF t1_j5q1r1g wrote
> Ethics has nothing to do with cognitive ability
I don't fully disagree with you, but it is related - eg vegans who eat bivalves because their lack of a nervous system means they don't feel pain.
We do make distinction in how "advanced" an organism is.
Idrialite t1_j5qld82 wrote
>they don't feel pain.
This is why, not their lack of cognitive ability.
bac5665 t1_j5rj6n8 wrote
Pain is a cognitive ability. One of many.
AhmedF t1_j5qo616 wrote
People who think gotchas are some form of intelligence are exhausting.
Fine - it's not pain. Are you saying any creature with any kind of cognitive ability is equivalent to you? Are ants equal to pets equal to dolphins equal to humans?
[deleted] t1_j5qp7ky wrote
[deleted]
XiphosAletheria t1_j5qmbu6 wrote
> To base morality off of arbitrary species labels is simply not intellectually supportable.
Why not? It makes more sense than pretending we base them on mental capacity, when, say, an adult crow can be significantly smarter than a month old human. We have moral obligations to humans because we are human, and because other humans can reciprocate. Other animals are not human, and cannot reciprocate, so we owe them nothing.
[deleted] t1_j5w81fo wrote
[deleted]
token-black-dude t1_j5q4ue4 wrote
I think it is fruitful and meaningful to take a descriptive approach to ethics. From a descriptive perspective, ethics is largely about reciprocity. people feel a high degree of ethical obligation towards those closest to them, less obligation towards strangers they perceive as "in-group" and none or very little towards strangers from various out-groups. This is why people frequently to donate a kidney to a family member but ignore starving migrants. People naturally also have a justified expectation, that the obligation they themselves feel towards their loved ones, is matched by an ethical right to support the other way.
The descriptive approach to ethics is a necessary starting point for discussions about ethics, as there is no indication that people can be convinced to act based on any of the more theoretical approaches to ethics (deontology, utilitarianism, etc.).
It is hard to see how to get from mutual commitment to animal rights. In the descriptive approach, it is not difficult to explain why the senile and brain-damaged have rights, but that is impossible if cognitive abilities is taken to be the foundation of rights: I risk becoming senile and brain-damaged myself, and in that situation I wouldt still want help; I am consequently obliged to render the same assistance. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how the same contract-like relationship can arise in the relationship with an elephant. Animals can have protection to the extent that they are someone's property, they cannot enter into an ethical relationship with humans because such relationships are always based on solidarity. Pets may be an exception, but not because they have "rights", pets are also "part of the family" and given priority above human members of out-groups.
Kenny--Blankenship t1_j5pl1tj wrote
>Why is it relevant
You sure you are in the right sub mate? 😂
Vet_Leeber t1_j5qbbg9 wrote
"Why is X?" is, like, the entire concept of philosophy.
token-black-dude t1_j5q7eh4 wrote
Yeah, there are a ton of people that argue that this random trait is somehow significant, and this is always taken as a given, and noone seems to be able to argue coherently, why that would be the case.
JonBonFucki t1_j5t26cs wrote
it's a question of personhood outside of humanity. Can AI be sentient? Can animals evolve enough on this planet that they become sentient? What about aliens from other planets? Sure, if we are seeing them they built spaceships and came here but are they persons? Are they sentient? What does it even mean to be a person? Those are questions important to philosophy and they can be examined looking at animals on this planet here and now as well as these pie in the sky conceptual situations.
Idrialite t1_j5qljse wrote
Are you??? Probing beliefs and asking question is a very important part of philosophy.
Kenny--Blankenship t1_j5rf36r wrote
I feel like you need to reread what he wrote lol
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5pgy7q wrote
I agree. Our good care of animals, the environment, etc, should be predicated upon us being good stewards of our lands, not because animals are cognitively capable. A good deal of philosophy tries to decenter the Human in its attempts at systemization. There is no death of the author though, we remain. I will continue privilege being human in my value-system because I am human.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pq8r7 wrote
Without another objective set of reasons, that's not much better than privileging white people because you are white, or males because you are male, or Americans because you are American.
token-black-dude t1_j5qp5fp wrote
If you're american, does it not make sense to prioritize the wellbeing of other americans over the wellbeing of irish or italians (in Ireland and Italy)? How is that racism? When you're american you are part of a community with rights and obligations, you pay taxes and expect certain rights as a citizen. That reciprocal relationship does not include irish and italians or any other nationality. And obviosly, as an american they have no responsibility to take care of you.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qtust wrote
Recognizing my personal obligations towards a person on the basis of some connection we have is one thing. But it's a different thing entirely from assigning moral value to that person. All persons have the same basic moral value which is entirely independent from how I may or may not be connected to them.
Cmon, the world doesn't revolve around you or me. We cannot base moral theory or law on such navel gazing tactics!
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5prrjr wrote
and I would privilege Chinese people if I were Chinese, or females if I were female, and Armenia if I were born in Armenian. Yes, those things would be permissible, and that is okay. If I am what I am, why would I not support that?
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5prz7i wrote
>Yes, those things would be permissible, and that is okay.
What are you talking about? You're literally condoning racism, sexism, and nationalism?
AhmedF t1_j5pso2z wrote
Yeah what a weird "gotcha" which is just mask off.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pt60q wrote
I'm taking you by your own words. You may change your stance at any time!
AhmedF t1_j5q1f2x wrote
[I'm agreeing with you - I'm saying OP to you basically thought they GOTCHA! but really it was a mask off moment for themselves]
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5q1s7h wrote
Omgosh, I just realized you're not the other commenter. Your little icons have the same color and I didn't register further than that. Please forgive my snark!
AhmedF t1_j5q8c5j wrote
It's all good, I assumed that is what happened (I've made the same mistake, so we're basically doofus-twins).
TubularHells t1_j5r2w8h wrote
Racism, sexism, and nationalism are the decadent obsessions of a dying civilization.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5r4wmm wrote
That sounds fancy, but what exactly do you mean?
[deleted] t1_j5r9qaw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j5rfhwz wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j5s9127 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
token-black-dude t1_j5qba32 wrote
So is everybody, inherently. Everyone prioritizes the health and well-being of those closest to them over the health and well-being of strangers. People spend thousands of $ on their pets and nickles on relief for developing countries.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qdtln wrote
Just to be clear: Are you condoning racism? Why or why not?
And do you actually think we should base philosophy and/or laws on what the individual prioritizes in their private life? OR do we recognize that our subjective preferences are not a good basis for general rules without reference to more objective things?
token-black-dude t1_j5qf987 wrote
It seems that people perceive their surroundings in concentric circles, family is closest, friends and colleagues close, the "in-group" also quite close and strangers are far away and not considered important. It is not racism to fail to place significant value on the lives of strangers, unless one arbitrarily places value on certain strangers because of the color of their skin. So I don't want to legitimize racism, and racism is probably not relevant to the fact that "distant" strangers are automatically given a lower value than close relatives.
I think it's pointless to make an elaborate philosophical system, if it is likely to be ignored by ordinary people, I think that is the case with deontology and utilitarism, both are really far from the way people make decisions in reality.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qgz8y wrote
"Ordinary people" are quite capable of understanding that racism is bad.
And surely it makes no sense to place more importance on someone who lives 100miles from me rather than 1000miles. Even the "ordinary person" would be able to understand that both of these persons are equally deserving of basic human rights and decency.
In fact the "ordinary person" can even understand that their own child and a complete stranger have equal rights.
What you're perhaps more importantly speaking to is personal responsibility: I have a personal responsibility toward my family that I do not have toward a stranger. That has nothing to do with how the law should deal with my family vs. strangers to me however. The law and philosophy need to treat all persons equally. "Ordinary people" do understand that.
token-black-dude t1_j5qicmx wrote
>And surely it makes no sense to place more importance on someone who lives 100miles from me rather than 1000miles.
Of course it does. If I am french I have every reason to expect to be able to enjoy the rights of a french person in the french society which provides a reasonably amount of protection from illness and crime and so on. Obviously that is contingent on me also recognizing that every other member of that community enjoys the same rights. We are in a reciprocal relationship, even if we are strangers. That same community does not include people in Australia, I can demand nothing from them and they nothing from me.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qinad wrote
You're missing the point. I hope.
You cannot possibly actually believe an Australian deserves fewer human rights than a French person simply because you happen to be French.
token-black-dude t1_j5qjiul wrote
No and that's not what i'm arguing. I'm arguing that there is no practical responsibility for me to ensure, that strangers who I am not in a reciprocal relationship with (even as "fictional" as nationality) have the practical ability to enjoy their rights. And I don't think people are willing to accept that there even is such a theoretical responsibility.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qk6ki wrote
You're turning into some strange sort of pretzel here.
But let me try to glean the main message here: you DO understand that Australian people have rights that have nothing whatsoever to do with your personal relationship to them.
token-black-dude t1_j5qkx5s wrote
Yes, that's between them and their government. They have no right to expect me to take responsibility for their wellbeing, just as I can't expect them to care for mine. We are not in a mutually reciprocal relationship
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qldxr wrote
>Yes
Cool. Then you do agree with everything I was saying in the first place. Good talk.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5psp8h wrote
It is difficult to take the moralization of -isms seriously from someone who doesn't place any importance on being human to begin with.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pt04h wrote
Huh?
Seeking to elevate the status of non-humans means I don't like humans and can't dislike racists?
What the what now?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5pu7kf wrote
You are not elevating the non-human, you are denigrating the Human. Feigning outrage is cliché and banal. You asked a question and I answered. You are upset because I did not answer in the way you liked. Accusations of -Ism's (and the assignment of any kind of moral weight to such accusations) is the last refuge for the incompetent.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5puk1e wrote
>you are denigrating the Human.
How in the world do you get that from anything I said?
>Accusations of -Ism's (and the assignment of any kind of moral weight to such accusations) is the last refuge for the incompetent.
So now you just don't think racism exists?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5puy3p wrote
"How in the world do you get that from anything I said?"
I should have simply posted this in response to every single one of your replies to me. You do not ask questions in good faith. Okay, that is fine. You don't have to ask questions in good faith. If this is the case we don't have to speak to each other.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pv5yp wrote
Oh, look at that, you've argued yourself into a corner for all the world to see, but you can't deal, so you accuse me of bad faith.
C'est la vie. Better luck next time!
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5pw36c wrote
Same to you as well. Have a blessed day.
kgbking t1_j5sq3op wrote
>I would privilege Chinese people if I were Chinese, or females if I were female
I agree with you. Because I am an American male, I too privilege men over women and Americans over all other nations. America and men first! (face palm and /s)
>If I am what I am
Are you not ignoring how your identities are constructs?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5tft9u wrote
Labelling (or correctly identifying, words which you may prefer) these identities as constructs does not negate them. Language, mathematics, computers, the internet are constructs. These constructs are useful. I do not think that your real contention with my identities is that they are constructions.
These identities as constructs still retain power, they still retain use. They contribute to our collective intersubjectivity. Also, there is the issue which proceeds which, the referent or the reference? My position still stands within your own framework, so I don't find it necessary to belabor this point.
Perhaps you point out these identities are constructs in effort to get me to vacate my positions. Perhaps I am willing to do so. The question is, is it possible/are you willing to persuade each person you happen upon, these people who fills our lives and contributes to our collective intersubjectivity, that each and every one of their identities is constructed, is a dissimulation of reality, is a falsity? It would be an exhausting endeavor. I would be unable to do it out of lack of energy, nor do I think I have the animating moral forcefulness to try to convince these people that the way they view themselves (and subsequently how they treat others accordingly) is wrong. Besides, what is Right and what is Wrong? I think most people on this subreddit (and probably reddit in general) don't actually believe in concrete, objective morality. All things should be understood within this context.
kgbking t1_j5vu3jl wrote
>Labelling (or correctly identifying, words which you may prefer) these identities as constructs does not negate them
It does and does not negate them. Any definition of these identities put forward can be negated and shown to be inadequate.
>These identities as constructs still retain power, they still retain use. They contribute to our collective intersubjectivity.
I fully agree
>is a falsity?
For clarity, I do not think identities are a falsity. I believe that identities do exist. I also believe that God exists. However, I believe that identities and God exist as social constructs; they are social products of the collectivity. I also think identities are beneficial in many ways. As you say and recognize, identities contributes to our collective intersubjectivity by allowing us to understand the other as part of a collective "We" and this is important.
One of my issues with identities is that they are often taken for being fixed objectivities, or in other words, they become for many people reifications. This happens when people make claims such as: "I am what I am". They completely neglect how they are in a process of becoming, that their identity is not fixed but fluid / changing, that their identity exists through opposition to a contrary identity, and that all of this is the result of a historical process.
>I do not think that your real contention with my identities is that they are constructions.
From your last posting, I believe that people are criticizing your usage of identity because you are using it to justify exclusionary practices and unequal treatment. I do not believe that abstract identity categorizations such as "man / women", "American / Mexican" justifies such forms of unequal treatment.
On the contrary, I believe that we need to enlarge our collectivities and attempt to include more and more within a collective "We". All of our particular identities (national, gender, etc. ) exist against the background of this collective 'We', but many people overwhelmingly fail to recognize this background because they are entrenched in their particular identity. The more we de-emphasize the particular, the better we can connect to the universal. There is a pressing need to grow our collective intersubjectivity and encompass more people within our intersubjective relations. Entrenching oneself in one's particular identity is a barrier to this. It sets up an "us vs them" dynamic which is grounded in relations of force.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5ygxpa wrote
I appreciate your response.
I suppose that my main contention is the one that can be found amongst post-modernists and traditionalists alike, that Capitalism (Capital, TechnoCapital, etc.) is a corrosive force that destroys barriers, particularity, specificity. It deterritorializes and detemporalizes the human experience. I do not think these are good things, and should be combatted when possible.
I understand the impulse and reasoning as to why someone would want to cultivate a larger "We", to be more inclusive with our philosophical and political programs. I also agree that one shouldn't limit themselves to what they are (race, sex, religion) and should put effort into what they can be in regards to art, athletics, academics, etc.
However, this request can be a bit disconcerting. I am told to relinquish my particularities for the universal, this particular person's particular universal. I don't think there is a Universal that has been stripped of metaphysics, so these Universals will carry with it always the unexamined premises (or bias, or baggage, which ever word you prefer). We will be adopting someone's Universal, whether it is everyone speaking English as a second language, neoliberal American global military hegemony, or Technocapital reaching back in time to assemble itself. To, for what Universal should I relinquish my ethnicity, my language, my God?
I believe that the more particular and the more specific a phenomenon is (ethnic customs, religious practice, etc.) the more meaning and weight it carries with each person of that way of life. And since I believe this, it behooves me to search out and to create more particularity, more specificity in our world. It creates meaning, it creates a multiplicity of meanings. This impulse creates diversity in the fight in contrast to the homogenizing effects of Capitalism.
kgbking t1_j67p38h wrote
Hey, so a few things.
>my main contention is the one that can be found amongst post-modernists and traditionalists alike, that Capitalism (Capital, TechnoCapital, etc.) is a corrosive force that destroys barriers, particularity, specificity.
I think this is completely incorrect on many levels. First, barriers, limits, particularity, specificity will always exist. The question is not whether or not they exist, but rather: in what form?
Do you really think that borders and particularity are being wiped out? Do we not live in an age of rampant perspectivism, identity politics, reviving nationalism ("my country first!"), etc.? Are national borders not being strengthen? Is there not growing intolerance of immigrants and refugees? Are more and more countries not building walls? I believe the paradox of globalization is: the freer the movement of capital, the more restrictions on the movement of labor (or, at least labor from the global South countries).
>post-modernists
>
>It deterritorializes and detemporalizes the human experience. I do not think these are good things, and should be combatted when possible.
I find it funny that capitalism (in the form of neoliberalism) has actually strengthened and flourished in the post-modern era. I think that the post-modern emphasize on particularity actually strengthens, not harms, capitalism. Each asserting their particularity against everyone else creates division, isolation, impotence, etc. We end up divided rather than united. Capitalism thrives on this. We are fundamentally forgetting Marx: "workers of the world unite!"
When we see the world through particularity, we become alienated from workers in other countries, men become alienated from women, straight individuals from the LGBTQ community, etc. Each pursues their own self-interest in opposition to the others. We become divided and alienated and cannot engage in collective action. Capitalism thrives on such conditions.
>I am told to relinquish my particularities for the universal
I never said this. I said to "de-emphasize" particularity. I do not believe it is possible nor healthy to relinquish all particularity. We are always particular; however, we can have different relationships to the moment of difference. For example, I can be a Canadian while still existing in unity and recognizing identity with those from other countries. Or, I can be a Canadian who is threatened by and opposed to those from other countries. In the former, I would recognize particularity and universality, while in the latter, I would be so entrenched in my particularity that I neglect the dimension of universality. Consequently, the particularity of the other becomes a threat to my own particularity.
>I don't think there is a Universal that has been stripped of metaphysics, so these Universals will carry with it always the unexamined premises (or bias, or baggage, which ever word you prefer).
I disagree with this. There are many different conceptualizations of universality. Many theorists now theorize universality as "lack". That is, universality expresses itself through absence, exclusion, or lack. For example, all the various nations exist against the background of the universal system of nation states. However, there are also refugees. Refugees are an expression of those who are excluded from the universal.
I think the theory goes something like this: universality only exists through the particulars and particulars only exist against the background of universality. Particularity and universality exist in a dialectical relation, so to say. Therefore, to recognize the universal involves recognizing which particulars are excluded from participation within the universal.
In this conceptualization, universality is nothing that can be imposed, enforced upon people, nor expanded through imperialism. Rather, Nazism and neoliberal capitalism are forms of particularity that are forcefully imposed upon others and falsely presented as 'universals'
I recommend reading chapter two of this book:
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/universality-and-identity-politics/9780231197700
McGowan, a Marxist and Hegelian, explains it way better than myself. However, while I do find the theorization of 'universality' as merely an absence, I am not sure if I fully agree. I have not developed my thoughts on the subject enough to take a strong position in the debate / conversation.
>the more meaning and weight it carries with each person of that way of life. And since I believe this, it behooves me to search out and to create more particularity, more specificity in our world. It creates meaning, it creates a multiplicity of meanings.
I disagree here as well. I believe meaning can be cultivated in both particularity and universality. It is not restricted to one or the other. Rather than "either / or", I believe it is "both / and".
Many definitions of 'universality' involve the well-being of the whole. Therefore, those who find meaning in fighting for the well-being of the whole / collective are finding meaning in universality. In contrast, many definitions of 'particularity' define it, at least in certain aspects, as the pursuit of individual well-being. Thus, some characterize particularity as an egoism in opposition to the collective well-being. Furthermore, these theorists believe that such self-interestedness is vain and unfulfilling. Personally, I think we need to find a healthy balance between the two.
>the fight against Capitalism.
Personally, I think the best way to combat capitalism is to embrace collectivity. The more united we are, the more we can undertake collective action. If we want to alter our economic system, we need to act collectively. Revolutions are the perfect example of this. Unions are another example. In both, there is large scale collective action.
In contrast, each pursuing their own self-interest results in the most extreme form of capitalism. Margaret Thatcher literally stated that "there is no such thing as community, only individuals". Thatcher, like the post-modernists, was an extreme particularist who hated universality. Consequently, capitalism flourished, unions died, and collective action has become largely impossible.
Lastly, capitalism is upheld by individuals not caring about each other. When we care for each other, diminish our egotistical pursuits, and focus on the well-being of the collective, capitalism fails. It is our egoism that upholds capitalism. Capitalism would collapse if everyone in society was a minimalist hippie.
kgbking t1_j6knqkn wrote
Hey mate, what did you think? Do you have some agreements with me? :D
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6kos33 wrote
I appreciate your thought out response. I shall return when I have the energy to muster. Hopefully in the next few days.
stumblewiggins t1_j5q5xtc wrote
Humanity ≠ Personhood, or at least that's the premise here.
For example, any of numerous aliens from many different Sci-Fi universes would almost obviously be counted as a person (though the legality of that consideration would not be automatic), but would not be human.
So the question here was, what makes for 'a person' in any of various ways we use the term, the legal definition being just one of them. Many people would argues that self-awareness, empathy, intelligence, awareness of death, etc. are all qualities that we associate with 'persons', whether human or otherwise.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pqmp6 wrote
What is so special about homo sapiens then? We're just one kind of animal among many. So in order to say we're special, you'd better have some solid reasoning other than "but we're hUmAN!"
Mustelafan t1_j5pyvg7 wrote
Most people would point to the great 'achievements' of the human race in fields such as philosophy, architecture, astrophysics, aeronautics etc.
...But then you have to wonder what justifies the supposed superiority of the 98% of humans that have made no such great achievements.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5q0qfz wrote
Exactly.
To draw a circle that includes all of the humans we would like to include as persons (children, elderly, average citizens, people with varying degrees of mental disabilities), it becomes unavoidable to include many animals in that same circle.
MouseBean t1_j5pxym8 wrote
Humans aren't specially significant.
[deleted] t1_j5qjys6 wrote
[removed]
XiphosAletheria t1_j5qmvnv wrote
I mean, only homo sapiens would be capable of formulating your question, or of providing an answer to it, which is the answer in and of itself
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qtgl1 wrote
Only some homo sapiens. And certainly not all the homo sapiens we would want to include under the category of persons. So the definition of a person needs to be a different one.
MouseBean t1_j5rby5r wrote
Yes, the definition should be expansive enough to include rivers and mountains and individual viruses and whole herds of deer.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5rfe9m wrote
I'm not a deep ecologist, so I don't ascribe to that. You do you though!
XiphosAletheria t1_j5s3kyx wrote
I don't know that it does, really. We include certain groups of humans that that doesn't apply to - namely very young children and the mentally deficient - largely because they tend to matter very greatly to one or more people to whom it does apply.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5tq2jm wrote
You don't think disabled people and children are inherently valuable/have personhood?
XiphosAletheria t1_j5uwxnh wrote
No, of course not. I don't believe the idea of an inherent value is even coherent. Everything is always valuable to someone for some reason. You can't grind something up and extract x grams of value from it - it's not some objective physical property of a thing.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5v4ifu wrote
>You can't grind something up and extract x grams of value from it - it's not some objective physical property of a thing.
This is a strange analogy. There are many objective things in the universe that don't have mass.
>Everything is always valuable to someone for some reason.
I don't see how relational value would work without the anchoring of inherent value. In other words: if the valuer doesn't matter, why would his or her valuing matter?
XiphosAletheria t1_j5vf827 wrote
>I don't see how relational value would work without the anchoring of inherent value. In other words: if the valuer doesn't matter, why would his or her valuing matter?
To whom? And for what? Your valuing of things might well not matter at all to someone else.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5vmjz3 wrote
So what?
AhmedF t1_j5psl2w wrote
> Being a smart elephant doesn't make an elephant human, it's still a smart elephant?
It's something with sentience that feels pain and joy, and to inflict something on it is the entire point here.
token-black-dude t1_j5q66e5 wrote
Yeah, I just dont agree that that is the point here. Sentience has no inherent moral value.
AhmedF t1_j5q8gac wrote
> Sentience has no inherent moral value.
That is the argument.
Should we treat an elephant the same as a rock? If not - why?
Plus, a lot of people confuse sentience with intelligence, when they are not the same.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j5q568s wrote
I don't really see much difference between a person and an elephant. I think all animals are people and there should be a worldwide ban on ALL killing.
token-black-dude t1_j5q6mmn wrote
If you get a parasitic worm in your intestines, does that have a right to live, even if it causes you significant distress?
TarantinoFan23 t1_j5qbb05 wrote
There is a phrase I use called "return to nature". If something is trying to live outside it's natural environment, it should be returned to it, if possible. And sometimes things cannot coexist in unnatural settings. I would destroy the worm because I had to, but I would make a charitable donation in its honor. And someday hopefully make a world where worms and people can live in harmony.
Helldozer5000 t1_j5qx5le wrote
>I would destroy the worm because I had to, but I would make a charitable donation in its honor. And someday hopefully make a world where worms and people can live in harmony.
Is this...is this a joke?
A charitable donation in a parasite's honor? Just, why? Which entity would you donate to? Are there organizations that specifically protect parasitic species?
This has to be a joke, right?
TarantinoFan23 t1_j5r2xnw wrote
Not joking. I try to show kindness to my fellow life forms.
Helldozer5000 t1_j5r8789 wrote
Same but if you're extending that to parasites then why not viruses and bacteria and what not? At what point does it become an exercise in futility?
I mean I know this is just a virtue signal and you aren't actually donating to charity whenever you take an antibiotic or whatever but it's an interesting logic to probe regardless.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j5rbk4i wrote
I do the charity, I don't pay others to do it for me.
My goal is to love life and use technology to replace killing. Even if it takes a long time.
Helldozer5000 t1_j5rdtwv wrote
You literally said "donation". That colloquially means money, but okay. If we're debating semantics then the conversation has already exceeded it's usefulness. Sorry for probing what clearly hasn't been thought out.
[deleted] t1_j5zr47f wrote
[deleted]
FranksRedWorkAccount t1_j5q6eg8 wrote
the piece is a little disorganized, imo, and doesn't really get into the topics that it brings up. It certainly does stand as a point about how facts and values can overlap and how natural language is an imperfect tool for expressing ideas. I would tell the author to put the first paragraph down three or so paragraphs, so that we don't read about an elephant and then wonder why we are talking about a candy bar. I would also ask the author if they wanted the "paper" to be about elephants and personhood or if they wanted it to be about the unfortunate situation of overlapping concepts that share the same word.
Utterlybored t1_j5qnqxp wrote
Can’t help but thinking of abortion debates and whether a blastocyst is a person.
DarthBigD t1_j6ac1v0 wrote
or just irrelevant jargon
finalmattasy t1_j5pq2zn wrote
Personhood is a material cop-out. It is a religious sensibility lacking in curiosity. All descriptions and assumptions work naturally in a particulate non-local universe.
kichien t1_j5qekn1 wrote
Can we please retire the word "normative"?
Tall-Truth-9321 t1_j5r7g7r wrote
Why, what don’t you like about it? What do these terms mean?
Tall-Truth-9321 t1_j5y7f21 wrote
Here’s a normative statement: you should have answered the questions.
I guess you can find it objectionable that there are norms. And you don’t believe in norms. Or you could object that there is confusion about the term as Wikipedia puts it:
A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. Normative is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in science, law, and philosophy try to restrict the use of the term normative to the evaluative sense
corporatestateinc t1_j5pq4wr wrote
The varied definitions circulating, demonstrates its just philosobabble. And per law, entities can, and do, receive protections without personhood status. And entities such as corporations, can indeed be persons