Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba205h [2017/08/21 12:20] – mmccannutsfl:classroom:seminars:pba205h [2024/04/20 17:37] (current) – mmccann
Line 8: Line 8:
     * age-based discrimination     * age-based discrimination
     * human rights doctrines vs. personhood (discrimination)     * human rights doctrines vs. personhood (discrimination)
-  * Response to the speciesism claim +  * Response to the speciesism claim? Or put that in Singer seminar? 
-  * Stories to include to illustrate things?+  * FIXME Stories to include to illustrate things?
     * Nick Vujicic - our humanity and value should not be based on our abilities...     * Nick Vujicic - our humanity and value should not be based on our abilities...
  
Line 16: Line 16:
 ===== Human vs. Person: What's the difference? ===== ===== Human vs. Person: What's the difference? =====
  
-  * Abortion advocates such as Mary Anne Warren claim that the pre-born child, while scientifically a human being, is not a //person// and therefore not a member of the moral community. Warren asks, "What characteristics entitle an entity to be considered a person?", and then lists criteria such as the immediate capacities for consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, communication, and self-awareness.   * The objection is that pre-born children **lack some function which born human beings have**, and are therefore not "persons."+  * Abortion advocates such as Mary Anne Warren claim that the pre-born child, while scientifically a human being, is not a //person// and therefore not a member of the moral community. Warren asks, "What characteristics entitle an entity to be considered a person?", and then lists criteria such as the immediate capacities for consciousness, reasoning, and self-awareness.    
 + 
 +  * The objection is that pre-born children **lack some function which born human beings have**, and are therefore not "persons."
  
 The first question we need to ask is, **What is a person? Why should anyone accept the idea that there can be such a thing as a human being that is not a human person?** What’s the difference?   The first question we need to ask is, **What is a person? Why should anyone accept the idea that there can be such a thing as a human being that is not a human person?** What’s the difference?  
  
-==== Human Rights are for All Human Beings ====+==== Who gets human rights? ====
  
 > "... the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of **all members of the human family** is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" - Universal Declaration of Human Rights((http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/)) > "... the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of **all members of the human family** is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" - Universal Declaration of Human Rights((http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/))
Line 26: Line 28:
 > "...the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, **before as well as after birth**" - UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child((http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/)) > "...the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, **before as well as after birth**" - UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child((http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/))
  
-FIXME human rights documents - why do they not say "person"? Because of historical discrimination, WWII+FIXME human rights documents - why do they not say "person"? Because of historical discrimination, WWII. 
 We know the [[pba100y#human-xthe-formula-for-injustice|history of legal personhood]]. We know that denying "personhood" to some human beings has always been a catastrophic moral error.  We know the [[pba100y#human-xthe-formula-for-injustice|history of legal personhood]]. We know that denying "personhood" to some human beings has always been a catastrophic moral error. 
  
Line 37: Line 40:
 In other words, she merely asserts that these traits are necessary for personhood but never says //why// these alleged value-giving properties are value-giving in the first place. Warren employs functionalist arguments in order to deny the personhood of the pre-born.  In other words, she merely asserts that these traits are necessary for personhood but never says //why// these alleged value-giving properties are value-giving in the first place. Warren employs functionalist arguments in order to deny the personhood of the pre-born. 
   * Functionalism establishes arbitrary criteria to deny some human beings their fundamental human rights -- this is an attack on personhood, and an attack on the very notion of human rights. **Don't all human beings have human rights?** Furthermore, basing personhood on functionality dehumanizes not only the pre-born, but also many born people who fail to meet functionalist "criteria".   * Functionalism establishes arbitrary criteria to deny some human beings their fundamental human rights -- this is an attack on personhood, and an attack on the very notion of human rights. **Don't all human beings have human rights?** Furthermore, basing personhood on functionality dehumanizes not only the pre-born, but also many born people who fail to meet functionalist "criteria".
 +
 ==== Consciousness and Sentience ==== ==== Consciousness and Sentience ====
-FIXME distinctions between terms: sentience vs. rationality vs. self-awareness...they are different things, but in typical conversations get lumped under the same vague umbrella+FIXME distinctions between terms: sentience vs. rationality vs. self-awareness...they are all different things, but in typical conversations get lumped under the same vague umbrella
  
 FIXME brief intro to Peter Singer FIXME brief intro to Peter Singer
Line 56: Line 60:
     * To define personhood based on functionalist criteria such as sentience, viability, or life experience is to define it based on one’s level of development. And an individual’s development generally corresponds with her age: The older one gets, the more developed she becomes. The younger she is, the less time has passed for her to develop the structures necessary to perform various functions.     * To define personhood based on functionalist criteria such as sentience, viability, or life experience is to define it based on one’s level of development. And an individual’s development generally corresponds with her age: The older one gets, the more developed she becomes. The younger she is, the less time has passed for her to develop the structures necessary to perform various functions.
     * So the question we must consider is this: //Do those of us who are older have a right to kill those who are younger//? Clearly, to select age-related criteria for personhood is arbitrary and discriminatory. It pits older humans against younger ones.     * So the question we must consider is this: //Do those of us who are older have a right to kill those who are younger//? Clearly, to select age-related criteria for personhood is arbitrary and discriminatory. It pits older humans against younger ones.
 +
 +FIXME https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5jSIx6vJLr/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link pretty good example of talking about personhood/ "human + X"
 +
 +
 +<note> **Insert Oriyana's testimony about sentience - amoeba vs. embryo** </note>
 +
     * Now some abortion advocates may argue they aren’t discriminating based on age, pointing out that some older humans never develop as they should (and should be classified as "non-persons"), and some younger humans develop more rapidly than normal (and should be classified as "persons").     * Now some abortion advocates may argue they aren’t discriminating based on age, pointing out that some older humans never develop as they should (and should be classified as "non-persons"), and some younger humans develop more rapidly than normal (and should be classified as "persons").
     * The question, they may ask, is not, "How old is she?" but instead, "How well does she function?" Even here, though, one identifies discrimination: **ability-based discrimination**. Why should the able-bodied be allowed to hurt the less capable? And who determines to which degree one is "able" versus "disabled"?     * The question, they may ask, is not, "How old is she?" but instead, "How well does she function?" Even here, though, one identifies discrimination: **ability-based discrimination**. Why should the able-bodied be allowed to hurt the less capable? And who determines to which degree one is "able" versus "disabled"?
Line 65: Line 75:
   * Furthermore, aside from conditions and disabilities which impede normal development, how one functions is usually related to how old someone is: The human species follows a general growth trend where at certain age ranges, a function begins (e.g., a heartbeat begins at 3 weeks following fertilization). So to select a criteria for personhood which someone simply cannot attain because of her age (a day-old embryo is too young to have a heartbeat) is unfair.   * Furthermore, aside from conditions and disabilities which impede normal development, how one functions is usually related to how old someone is: The human species follows a general growth trend where at certain age ranges, a function begins (e.g., a heartbeat begins at 3 weeks following fertilization). So to select a criteria for personhood which someone simply cannot attain because of her age (a day-old embryo is too young to have a heartbeat) is unfair.
   * If humans have value only because of some acquired property like skin color or self-consciousness and not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees.  Do we really want to say that those with more self-consciousness are more human (and valuable) than those with less?   * If humans have value only because of some acquired property like skin color or self-consciousness and not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees.  Do we really want to say that those with more self-consciousness are more human (and valuable) than those with less?
-    * Philosophically, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature. Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property that they may gain or lose during their lifetimes.  If you deny this, it’s difficult to say why objective human rights apply to anyone. +    * Philosophically, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature. Humans have value and inherent rights simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property that they may gain or lose during their lifetimes.  If you deny this, it’s difficult to say why objective human rights apply to anyone. 
  
 <note> **Dialogue about Personhood: "Who gets human rights?"** <note> **Dialogue about Personhood: "Who gets human rights?"**
Line 93: Line 103:
 discriminated against because of their race, or gender, or their sexual orientation. Today, in Canada, an entire class of human beings are denied rights and personhood because of their age. Because they’re living in the first 9 months of life. discriminated against because of their race, or gender, or their sexual orientation. Today, in Canada, an entire class of human beings are denied rights and personhood because of their age. Because they’re living in the first 9 months of life.
  
-H: Yeah—all the arguments go back to their age. [Pause] Well, if your goal was to get me thinking, you’ve definitely succeeded.+H: Yeah—all the arguments go back to their age. [//Pause//] Well, if your goal was to get me thinking, you’ve definitely succeeded.
  
 - //Maria at UTM// - //Maria at UTM//
Line 111: Line 121:
 === What kind of world do you want to live in? === === What kind of world do you want to live in? ===
  
-FIXME sort through what's left 
   * functionalism dehumanizes not only the unborn, but also many people outside of the womb.   * functionalism dehumanizes not only the unborn, but also many people outside of the womb.
   * it's actually about the strong depriving the weakest, most vulnerable humans of their rights. This flies in the face of our moral intuition to care //more// for the vulnerable, not less   * it's actually about the strong depriving the weakest, most vulnerable humans of their rights. This flies in the face of our moral intuition to care //more// for the vulnerable, not less
Line 118: Line 127:
  
 Once we draw the line anywhere later than fertilization, there is nothing that grounds our views regarding rights. Because if humans only have rights due to some acquired property rather than by virtue of being members of the human family, all we are left with is arbitrary definitions of personhood that always leave some humans out. In the past, and in Canada currently, the strong deny personhood to the weak in order to victimize those individuals. A civil society should protect all humans and not discriminate against the youngest and most vulnerable humans.  Once we draw the line anywhere later than fertilization, there is nothing that grounds our views regarding rights. Because if humans only have rights due to some acquired property rather than by virtue of being members of the human family, all we are left with is arbitrary definitions of personhood that always leave some humans out. In the past, and in Canada currently, the strong deny personhood to the weak in order to victimize those individuals. A civil society should protect all humans and not discriminate against the youngest and most vulnerable humans. 
- +  
-As such, it is far more reasonable to argue that, although human beings differ immensely, we are nonetheless equal. Thus, the only personhood definition that leaves all humans safe is one that acknowledges our basic human rights by virtue of our membership in the human family. That doesn’t change when our capacities change but begins the very moment we come into existence. And that, for each of us, is fertilization.  +FIXME //What grounds human rights and human equality?// "It can’t be that all of us look human, because some have been disfigured. It can’t be that all of us have functional brains, because some are in reversible comas. It can’t be one’s ability to think or feel pain, for some think better than others and some don’t feel any pain. It can’t be something we can gain or lose, or something of which we can have more or less. If something like that grounds rights, equal rights don’t exist...**There is only one quality we all have equally—we’re all human.”** - Steve Wagner
  
 https://www.endthekilling.ca/blog/2015/04/15/bad-ideas-and-bloody-consequences --> re: Maaike's debate with Sumner https://www.endthekilling.ca/blog/2015/04/15/bad-ideas-and-bloody-consequences --> re: Maaike's debate with Sumner
Line 132: Line 141:
   * :?: Scientific Materialism: http://www.equip.org/articles/what-the-walking-dead-can-teach-pro-lifers/ FIXME 300-level?   * :?: Scientific Materialism: http://www.equip.org/articles/what-the-walking-dead-can-teach-pro-lifers/ FIXME 300-level?
   * http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/life-defining-the-beginning-by-the-end-24 -- second half addresses many functionalist claims, also Abraham Lincoln's argument   * http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/life-defining-the-beginning-by-the-end-24 -- second half addresses many functionalist claims, also Abraham Lincoln's argument
 +
 +FIXME https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/