sycld, your ideas about brain function are dependent, it seems, on our current understanding of brain function. now, you may be absolutely correct, and there's stuff we know about how the brain works sufficiently that we can be sure we won't be proven wrong by future evidence. but i wouldn't bank on it.
good question. i don't know. but any real definition of "personhood" rules out baby. there's a definition i like which relies on the ability to have preferences -- high-functioning apes have demonstrated some ability in this, but other than humans that's it. preferences aren't just like "want food" or "would prefer not to be poked with stick"; they're more significant, demonstrating an understanding of consequences and long-term ideas and prioritising and so on. to be honest it's been so long since i've dipped into this discussion that i can't go into much more detail than that without bringing out my coursework on the subject from three years ago.Originally Posted by sycld
edit: the utilitarian position that follows this idea of having preferences is to maximise "preference satisfaction" rather than "happiness", just as a point of interest.
certainly not as complicated as high-functioning apes, that's for damn sure.
the potential argument (ie. a foetus/baby is precious because it has the potential to be a person) leads to thinking negatively of contraception; "every sperm is sacred" stuff. i'm not confused. there's no leap there.
well, perhaps not a crab. perhaps a dog, or cow. the point is that there are animals with higher brain functions than babies, and we're kind of okay with killing animals (assuming we're not denting their species, and causing them much pain or distress). either there is an arbitrary and speciesist double standard at play, or there's something extrinsic (ie. not to do with brain functions) that makes babies less okay to kill than dolphins, saint bernards, grizzly bears, and so on.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks